The blood ban of Jehovah's Witnesses is more complex than many realize

By: RICHARD N. OSTLING - Associated Press | Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:04 PM PST ∞

NEW YORK ---- Jehovah's Witnesses are renowned for teaching that Jesus is not God and that the world as we know it will soon end. Another unusual belief causes even more entanglements ---- namely, that God forbids blood transfusions even when patients' lives are at stake.

The doctrine's importance will be underscored next week as elders who lead more than 98,000 congregations worldwide recite a new five-page blood directive from headquarters.

The tightly disciplined sect believes the Bible forbids transfusions, though specifics have gradually been eased over the years. Raymond Franz, a defector from the all-powerful Governing Body that sets policies for the faith, thinks leaders hesitate to go further for fear that total elimination of the ban would expose the organization to millions of dollars in legal liability over past medical cases.

The Witnesses have opposed transfusions of whole blood since 1945. A later pronouncement also barred transfusions of blood's "primary components," meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma.

An announcement in 2000 in the official Watchtower magazine, however, states that because of ambiguity in the Bible, individuals are free to decide about therapies using the biological compounds that make up those four blood components, such as gamma globulin and clotting factors that counteract hemophilia.

Next week's directive could create confusion about these compounds, known as blood "fractions."

Without noting the 2000 change, the new directive tells parents to consider this: "Can any doctor or hospital give complete assurance that blood or blood fractions will not be used in treatment of a minor?"

Aside from the new directive, a footnote in the Witnesses' standard brochure, "How Can Blood Save Your Life?," mentions the 2000 article on fractions ---- but then omits its contents.

By coincidence, next week's directive follows some heavy criticism of the blood transfusion policy from attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood of Fort Myers, Fla., writing in the Journal of Church and State, published by Baylor University.

Louderback-Wood, who was raised a Witness but now has no religious affiliation, accuses her former faith of giving "inaccurate and possibly dishonest arguments" to believers facing crucial medical decisions.

Louderback-Wood complains that many Witnesses and physicians aren't given clear instruction about their faith's blood transfusion policy, particularly on the subject of fractions.

She's no disinterested bystander. The lawyer says her mother died from severe anemia in 2004 because local elders didn't realize hemoglobin is permitted.

Louderback-Wood learned that hemoglobin was allowed from the Web site of Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, which was founded in 1997 by dissenting local elders, eight of whom served on Hospital Liaison Committees that advise Witnesses and physicians.

The founder of Associated Jehovah's Witnesses, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his standing in a faith that does not tolerate dissent, says liaison committee members know about the revised teachings, but most Witnesses automatically refuse all forms of blood without consulting the committees. Physicians are often ill-informed about Witness beliefs, he says.

Louderback-Wood thinks the faith is subject to legal liability for misinforming adherents, which to her knowledge is an untested theory in U.S. courts. Related issues arise in a pending lawsuit in Calgary, Alberta, however, over the alleged "wrongful death" of teenage leukemia patient Bethany Hughes.

Witnesses headquarters refused an Associated Press request to interview an expert on blood beliefs. Instead, General Counsel Philip Brumley issued a prepared statement rejecting Louderback-Wood's "analysis and conclusions" in general.

"Any argument challenging the validity of this religious belief inappropriately trespasses into profoundly theological and doctrinal matters," Brumley stated.

The Watchtower's 1945 ban said "all worshippers of Jehovah who seek eternal life in his new world" must obey. Such edicts are regarded as divine law, since the Governing Body uniquely directs true believers. Violators risk ostracism by family and friends.

A subsequent Watchtower pronouncement forbade storage of a patient's own blood for later transfusion. In all, Associated Jehovah's Witnesses lists 20 shifts and refinements in blood-related rules over the years.

At the core of their blood beliefs, Witnesses cite Acts 15:29, where Jesus' apostles agreed that Gentile converts should "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood." The Witnesses also cite passages in Genesis and Leviticus.

Judaism and Christianity have always understood these scriptures to ban blood-eating for nourishment. This underlies Judaism's kosher procedures to extract blood from meat, which Witnesses do not follow. Christianity eventually decided the rule was temporary.

Experts assume that Raymond Franz's late uncle, Frederick Franz, who served anonymously as the Witnesses' chief theologian, decided those passages cover blood transfusions. But Raymond Franz raises questions about the blood policy in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Among them:

-- Why forbid a patient's own stored blood yet permit components derived from large amounts of donated and stored blood?

-- Why allow organ transplants, which introduce far more foreign white blood cells than transfusions?

-- The Witnesses forbid plasma, which is mostly water, but allow the components in it that provide therapy. So what's the point of banning plasma?

Advances in bloodless surgery have reduced medical dangers for Witnesses in the United States, but Associated Jehovah's Witnesses maintains the blood policy is a life-threatening problem elsewhere.

Louderback-Wood says she'll be contented if her protest saves one child's life.

Next Previous

More Stories

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Danny wrote on Jan 27, 2006 2:01 AM:Thank you for publishing this article on the Jehovah's Witnesses 'transfusion confusion'. I was born a 3rd generation JW in 1957 was stricken with a bleeding disorder at age 13 and know first hand the peril of being subjected to the whim of the Watchtower's flip-flop no blood policy.-Danny

Abigail wrote on Jan 27, 2006 2:25 AM:The WTBTS, despite its claims that abstaining from blood shows respect for life, is sadly misguided. They finish up with 'respect' for the item that represents life. ie in their opinion, blood, but no respect for the very life of their members, in that they are expected to die and allow their children to die, on the alter of their mistranslation of the Bible. If the number of JWs who have died from lack of blood were to be calculated, it way out number those poor souls who died at Jonestown drinking the 'Koolaid'. The JWs insist that they choose not to take blood and it is not at the behest of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. However, the WTBTS provide the very forms that the JWs carry with them refusing blood. Also, any JW who chooses to take blood, until 2000 was Disfellowshiped. This meant that no member of the JW faith was allowed to even say 'hello' to them, including their own families. Since 2000, this punishment has been changed, in name only, to Disassociation. The result is the same, they are shunned by all JWs. The NO BLOOD policy is forced on these poor misguided people and they are expected to pay for it with their lives! How much respect for life does that actually show?

Walter wrote on Jan 27, 2006 9:01 AM:The letter from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses addressed to ALL CONGREGATIONS states in the second to last paragraph: If in some critical emergency situation the HLC ( Hospital Liaison Committee) asks you to stay with the patient in the hospital because doctors are threatening to give blood, do your best to cooperate. You may have to organize other elders and mature ones to assist you so that you always have someone present until the patient stabilizes and the threat of a blood transfusion has been eliminated. If the patient is encouraged to base their decision not to use blood on their own conscience, why is it necessary to have round-the-clock guards protecting her. Are they going to read a continuous religious litany all night long of the Biblical text in Acts 15, abstain from blood, abstain from blood, abstain from blood? Or are the going to expound to patient and medical staff, secular non-religious medical arguments and misrepresentations? Many have lost their lives, succumbing to misleading medical arguments promulgated from the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization.

Ken wrote on Jan 27, 2006 10:22 AM:You mean, they show their 'respect for the sanctity of life' by letting their members die?? How crazy is that?

Bob wrote on Jan 27, 2006 1:40 PM:These people are being misled and deceived by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They need and deserve our prayers asking God to open their minds and hearts so they can see for themselves how their leaders are abusing them.

Steve wrote on Feb 1, 2006 7:45 PM:This blood policy is one of those ridiculous JW "theological" arguments that are so poorly founded, no-one can work out how to begin to counterattack them. Neither the actual bible nor the reality of scientific knowledge can engage their mis-stated and distorted "words of god". Whether or not you think that all scripture is inspired by a god, surely the context of the Acts quote is enough to destroy this silly policy. "Continue to abstain" must mean "ïn whatever way you abstain right now as I write this verse" or it is a meaningless verse. Blood transfusions were invented after 1900, so they could never (in any sensible exegesis) have been the target activity the author had in mind when he asked his readers to "abstain from blood". To suggest he meant blood transfusions is to insult the intelligence of every person to whom you suggest it. Contextually, it was far more likely to mean "even if it was your own goat, once it's been on the altar, it's unhygienic to eat it, and also, we don't do animal sacrifices any more. We're Christian now". As for the desperate and pathetic distinctions now being drawn between blood, blood fractions and the various therapeutic preparations that can be administered under professional health care, either it's blood or it's not. Right now a suitable collection of fractions and a litre of Hartmann's solution will do the trick - it won't be blood, after all. Keep up the fluid and let your body make its own plasma. The frustration one feels at the misery and suffering that the WTBTS inflicts on its members, especially those to whom you are close, is almost impossible to overcome. Good luck to Ms Louderback-Wood as she tries.

TJ wrote on Feb 22, 2006 9:57 AM:Jehovah's Witnesses misrepresent secular medical facts to promote cult practices; that's the bottom line. See my open letter to the medical community at my website where I discuss attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood's article, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions And The Tort Of Misrepresentation," from the Journal Of Church And State, Autumn, 2005. Visit and share the open letter at: http://www.freewebs.com/madamequixote/

christine wrote on Mar 1, 2006 12:31 PM: According to the dictionary,the definition of "abstain" means to refrain, or desist. Anyone can take any topic and apply an influential opinion to try to sway another to their side. But the bottom line is this - when the scriptures say to "abstain", you either do or you don't. Meaning, you listen or you don't. I would rather answer for misunderstanding the scriptures rather than disobedience to them.

Daniel wrote on Jan 20, 2008 8:39 AM:I got caught up in the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) sect from age 11 to 19. I carried the "no blood" card during that time. Fortunately, I never had to take a stand against a blood transfusion while a JW. I left the organization, because I realized it was a cult against orthodox Christianity and other stupid, non-scientific beliefs such as the lion and lamb laying next to each other on earth in paradise. That was many years ago; today, I'm a successful, happy parent of four wonderful children. One of them required a whole blood transfusion at birth. I signed the consent form, and proud to announce she's a healthy, loving child today. We could all write books on the pros and cons of JW's beliefs, but most of their beliefs come down to a matter of conscience. The U.S. Supreme Court will virtually always take the side of the JWs, since whatever nutty belief the JW's come up with will fall under "freedom of religion"; therefore, the Supreme Court and lawyers have been part of the JW problem. I recommend to any JW who may have to take a stand on this issue who thinks by refusing that they're being obedient to the scriptures, consider this fact if you die because of your refusal: you died for nothing. "You were part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos