Why Don't They do This for Everybody?

[Jem]

This is what a professor of surgery at the University of Kentucky in Lexington asked about bloodless medical techniques used on Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

[bskeptic]

You know that when they wrote the Biblical prohibition against consuming blood, they probably weren't thinking of blood transplants? (Which seem to go back to the 17th century.)

[Jem]

You know that when they wrote the Biblical prohibition against consuming blood, they probably weren't thinking of blood transplants? (Which seem to go back to the 17th century.)

The Biblical prohibition on taking blood into the body was written into God's law to Israel. (Lev 17:10-12, 14)
It specifically speaks about "eating" blood in that law and blood transfusions were not made common until last century. When someone is unable to eat by mouth, they are often fed intraveniously. We see no difference between transfusions and consuming blood via any other method.

To demonstrate that God's law on blood was still in force for Christians, Acts 15:28, 29 restates the prohibition. It was stated as a "necessary" thing for Christians to "abstain from blood". Abstaining means what?

I believe that during WW 2 when they needed to transfuse soldiers wounded in battle they did not have sufficient blood and used sea water as a volume expander until the patient replenished his own red cells. Saline is still used as a volume expander in many cases today and is accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Since the medical profession has come to appreciate the advantages of bloodless surgery, Hospitals devoted to bloodless medicine have sprung up all over the world.

Since refusing to take blood is a religious position for Jehovah's Witnesses, it doesn't surprise us that it would be proven to be advantageous to avoid it.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/no-blood-medicine-meets-challenge/

[bskeptic]

We see no difference between transfusions and consuming blood via any other method.

Yes, and that's very doubtful. Would the Bible intend to speak about something that hadn't been invented yet?

[Jem]

We see no difference between transfusions and consuming blood via any other method.

Yes, and that's very doubtful. Would the Bible intend to speak about something that hadn't been invented yet?

If a doctor was to tell an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol or he would die....do you think he would be able to avoid taking it by mouth but transfuse it straight into his veins? He would still be consuming it...so would it still kill him?

The Bible speaks about the time we are living in now without mentioning details like modes of transport or communication technology. You think that the Creator was unaware of the potential of man's creative abilities? Man is made in God's image after all.

He foretold man's ruination of the earth long before he possessed the ability to actually accomplish it. (Rev 11:18)

[bskeptic]

If a doctor was to tell an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol or he would die....do you think he would be able to avoid taking it by mouth but transfuse it straight into his veins? He would still be consuming it...so would it still kill him?

Yes but then the intention would be very similar in that scenario. The alcoholic would be trying to get drunk, just the same as before.

However, with blood transfusions, they are a special case and quite different to the ordinary consumption of blood on the level of intention.

You think that the Creator was unaware of the potential of man's creative abilities? Man is made in God's image after all.

That God can conceive of such things, still leaves the question of interpretation. Blood transfusions are quite different to the common consumption of blood.

[Trinity]

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27.

Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, can we heal people by giving them blood?

[kurros]

This is what a professor of surgery at the University of Kentucky in Lexington asked about bloodless medical techniques used on Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

Why don't they do it for everyone? Perhaps they will move that way, if it works better. There is no argument here for refusing transfusions though, there are obviously many cases where you will die without a transfusion, and cases where these blood-conservation techniques are just not going to work. Particularly emergency situations.

I don't think it is terribly surprising that patients would do better if they can preserve their own blood rather than rely on transfusions, but transfusions are clearly a vital and life-saving measure in many circumstances.

[Jem]

If a doctor was to tell an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol or he would die....do you think he would be able to avoid taking it by mouth but transfuse it straight into his veins? He would still be consuming it...so would it still kill him?

Yes but then the intention would be very similar in that scenario. The alcoholic would be trying to get drunk, just the same as before.

However, with blood transfusions, they are a special case and quite different to the ordinary consumption of blood on the level of intention.

It has nothing to do with intent.....it has everything to do with "abstaining". What does it mean to "abstain" from some activity? Can you avoid doing it one way but still do it another without violating the instruction?

You think that the Creator was unaware of the potential of man's creative abilities? Man is made in God's image after all.

That God can conceive of such things, still leaves the question of interpretation. Blood transfusions are quite different to the common consumption of blood.

The consumption of blood was common outside of God's people who were forbidden to consume any sort of blood under penalty of death. An animal killed for food had to be properly bled.

This is why the law on blood, restated to Christians, included avoiding "things strangled" but not bled. (Acts 15:28, 29)

[Jem]

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27.

Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, can we heal people by giving them blood?

Can you justify breaking God's law to save your life? Taking blood was punishable by death in Israel, so how does God feel about it?

How much does the average person know about the dangers of blood transfusions? The immune response in the human body is to immediately reject foreign tissue. As soon as someone else's blood is put into a body, vital resources go to immediately fighting the foreign substance. It is virtually a liquid organ transplant. People recover more quickly without blood because blood transfusions compromise recovery. This is what the medical profession have come to appreciate when treating Witness patients.

We also have to remember that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry. They are not going to be quick to abandon the use of it even though it would save the health system millions of dollars a year in shorter recovery times and less complications after surgery.

[Jem]

This is what a professor of surgery at the University of Kentucky in Lexington asked about bloodless medical techniques used on Jehovah's Witnesses.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

Why don't they do it for everyone? Perhaps they will move that way, if it works better. There is no argument here for refusing transfusions though, there are obviously many cases where you will die without a transfusion, and cases where these blood-conservation techniques are just not going to work. Particularly emergency situations.

Emergency situations do call for immediate treatment. We have found through personal experience that blood can be avoided even in emergency situations by the use of volume expanders such as dextrin or saline solutions. It is no accident that blood is compatible with common sea water. By pumping up the volume you prevent the veins from collapsing and allow the body to make up its red oxygen carrying cells, which it does very rapidly. Use of EPO is also helpful in speeding up the body's natural production of red cells.

People naturally assume that blood is life saving, but more people die after blood transfusions than the ones who reject them. The body is magnificently designed and given assistance to heal itself naturally, it will do so very quickly. This is what the medical profession has come to realize.

I don't think it is terribly surprising that patients would do better if they can preserve their own blood rather than rely on transfusions, but transfusions are clearly a vital and life-saving measure in many circumstances.

People opting for future surgery can have their own blood stored if they wish. It is certainly safer than using an unknown person's blood, particularly if it is sold. Do you know the lifestyle of people who need to sell their blood? How healthy are they?
Viruses and bacteria can be transmitted by blood products. They cannot screen for every known virus. The AIDS epidemic of the 80's was largely spread by contaminated blood and blood products such as Factor 8 for haemophiliacs.

The use of blood is of course a personal decision, but for JW's it is not negotiable. We will not have blood put into our bodies by any means or for any reason, and our record stands as one to imitate. Informed doctors will not opt for the use of blood, knowing that recovery is better and with less complications, without it.

[Trinity]

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27.

Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, can we heal people by giving them blood?

Can you justify breaking God's law to save your life? Taking blood was punishable by death in Israel, so how does God feel about it?

How much does the average person know about the dangers of blood transfusions? The immune response in the human body is to immediately reject foreign tissue. As soon as someone else's blood is put into a body, vital resources go to immediately fighting the foreign substance. It is virtually a liquid organ transplant. People recover more quickly without blood because blood transfusions compromise recovery. This is what the medical profession have come to appreciate when treating Witness patients.

We also have to remember that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry. They are not going to be quick to abandon the use of it even though it would save the health system millions of dollars a year in shorter recovery times and less complications after surgery.

If there are health risks involved in blood transfusions and organ transplants, then doctors should aim to reduce those risks as much as possible. However, the question of morality is a separate issue from the question of health risks.

[Jem]

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27.

Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, can we heal people by giving them blood?

Can you justify breaking God's law to save your life? Taking blood was punishable by death in Israel, so how does God feel about it?

How much does the average person know about the dangers of blood transfusions? The immune response in the human body is to immediately reject foreign tissue. As soon as someone else's blood is put into a body, vital resources go to immediately fighting the foreign substance. It is virtually a liquid organ transplant. People recover more quickly without blood because blood transfusions compromise recovery. This is what the medical profession have come to appreciate when treating Witness patients.

We also have to remember that blood is a multi-million dollar a year industry. They are not going to be quick to abandon the use of it even though it would save the health system millions of dollars a year in shorter recovery times and less complications after surgery.

If there are health risks involved in blood transfusions and organ transplants, then doctors should aim to reduce those risks as much as possible.

Science as medicine is continually changing as new discoveries are made and better techniques are developed. The use of blood initially, was fraught with danger until a fuller understanding of its components and their effect on the human body was better understood. Some in the medical profession are set in their ways and fail to move with the times. Any doctor who relies on blood transfusions today as common practice is not much of a doctor. Witness patients in the past often had difficulty finding a doctor willing to perform surgery without blood. Today, that is no longer the case. Informed surgeons know that it is advantageous not to use blood in any surgical procedure....even ones once thought impossible without it.

However, the question of morality is a separate issue from the question of health risks.

This is true. Even if blood was proven to be a life saving procedure (as it was once thought to be) Jehovah's Witnesses would not break God's law in order to save their lives. It is for us a non negotiable scriptural law, but seeing our position vindicated by the medical profession after decades of ridicule and criticism is proof that Jehovah's ways are always right.

[bskeptic]

It has nothing to do with intent.....it has everything to do with "abstaining". What does it mean to "abstain" from some activity? Can you avoid doing it one way but still do it another without violating the instruction?

If the instruction is, "abstain from this as food", (as we may easily imagine the intent of the rule to be), then you can have a blood transfusion without violating this rule. It's quite different to eating blood as food.

[Jem]

It has nothing to do with intent.....it has everything to do with "abstaining". What does it mean to "abstain" from some activity? Can you avoid doing it one way but still do it another without violating the instruction?

If the instruction is, "abstain from this as food", (as we may easily imagine the intent of the rule to be), then you can have a blood transfusion without violating this rule. It's quite different to eating blood as food.

The intent of the OP was to highlight the efficacy of not using blood as medicine for anyone. This is not JW's telling others what to do, but the medical profession itself confirming the fact that blood is not the best choice in current medical practice.

For JW's it would not matter whether blood transfusions saved lives or not, God's law was to "abstain" from blood. As far as we are concerned, taking blood into the body by any means transgresses God's law and is not within the definition of abstinence.

People can read the information in the link and also watch the video and make up their own minds. It's a personal choice but one where the correct information is necessary.