Someone calling themselves JJones posted a comment on my entry regarding my friend's death. JJones opened with "Here is the reason your friend died:" and proceeded to rag on the Watchtower, Bible and Tract society without giving a real explanation. I am going to respond here for the first and last time because this is my blog, my religion and my friend and I choose to address this rather digressive comment for no particular reason. =)
My response: Interesting. You're absolutely right, he died because he believed that eating blood is in violation of God's view on blood; which he learned from studying the Watchtower publications. However, I believe that you got a little carried away with yourself there, what with the accusations of murder and all. :) If a parent believes that an injection of some medication will harm their child in some way that outweighs the benefits, then the parents are not exactly neglectful if they refuse treatment. What is at stake here is everlasting life, rather than a temporary one filled with pain and misery. JW's believe that Jesus' promise of resurrection is real, and that it is worth dying for.
Until a child demonstrates the ability to think and decide for themselves what they believe, the parent has the responsibility to use their best judgment in regard to the welfare of the child. No parent has ever been removed, or child chastised because the courts decided to force a transfusion. We respect that the doctors and authorities who do so honestly believe that this is the best treatment. After all, if a parent honestly felt that a hit of acid before school in the morning is good for the child, we would expect the authorities to intervene. If, however, the parents decide to accept blood for their child, yes, they would be removed from the congregation. This is not because they necessarily did something 'wrong', but because, when they were baptized, they stated that they accepted those beliefs which they're now violating. In fact, collapsing under the possibility of losing your child is considered rather mild and the time to 'reinstatement' is usually brief. It is very similar for the ones who do so on their own behalf.
Now then, on to the subject at hand
Ok, here it goes...
The only, I repeat ONLY treatment that we deny as a group is whole blood transfusions or of the four main components. Again, that is the ONLY thing we refuse. The view and interpretation of the scriptures has, indeed changed. I personally do not think it was a coincidence that the rejection of transfusions was passed after at least one alternative was available. We can accept "blood fractions" as one's conscience allows. All other transplants, medications and other treatments are up to the patient.
The reason we do not accept blood transfusions is because we believe that the bible says that god holds blood as sacred. The commandment is clear. As science advances and more stuff that is not unique to the blood stream is isolated and put forth as alternative, the more our stance will be refined. Who knows, perhaps jjones is right about our interpretation of the bible and we will be directed to accept transfusions. This, however, does not change the fact that we stand by what we believe - and we believe that transfusions are out. And, in the mean time, we follow the attitude of the disciples who stayed with Jesus after he said that only those who 'ate his flesh and drank his blood are in union with him': (John 6:66-69) 66 "Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. 67 Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: 'YOU do not want to go also, do YOU?' 68 Simon Peter answered him: 'Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life; 69 and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.'" To those of us that stick with the organization, it is because we believe that they are the closest of all to the truth about God and his requirements for us.
Dennis was a close friend of mine. He had more maturity in one finger than most adults today have in their whole body and, as the courts upheld, had proven that he was capable of making the decision for himself. He made a choice. He took a stand. Yes, his faith cost him his life, as it did for all of our brothers who died in Nazi Germany because they refused to heil Hitler or in the USSR for not renouncing their belief in God. Refusing to deny or compromise one's beliefs in the face of death is not suicide.
A related side note: I have read twenty years of the New England Journal of Medicine's articles on what he had. In the list of treatments recomended, Blood transfusion was not mentioned. The only reason they recommended it was to try to buy more time for the blood thickening drugs to bring the levels up so he could accept the continuation of chemotherapy. Also, they got to it too late. He'd already had leukemia for a long time and nothing could save him; the only thing a transfusion could do was extend his misery a couple years at most. Let the blood save the life of some one who both needs and wants it.
6 comments:
Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.
FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?
2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.
3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.
Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.
None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines
---
Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness
Excellent post. Be assured that Dennis, his family, and all of you who cared for him are in the prayers of Witnesses from around the world.
Unfortunately there are those out there, mainly apostates, that see tragedies like these as an opportunity to stir up anger against Jehovah's people.
But we know that your friend, like Jesus, loved Jehovah so much that he was willing to put faithfulness to him above all else, and Jehovah won't forget about him. In fact he is living in Jehovah's memory, waiting for the resurrection.
Much christian love,
TJ
The Jones fellow who commented plainly has an axe to grind. He has a spam comment involving JWs and lawsuits that he posts most everywhere. He'd tried to put it on my blog. I've seen it scores of times. His comments to you indicate just plain meanness.
I enjoyed your post and wrote a supporting post of my own, but as regards replying to this fellow, I'm sure it fell upon deaf ears. Not to say others might have found it valuable.
In reply to dhaszard: I agree about the accountability of the brothers at the Watchtower; if and/or when Jehovah says, after armageddon, "No, no, that's not what I meant!", well then, those involved will have to either repent or die. As far as hypocrisy, though, is the claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess. Being a teacher, you should know this.
I believe that the brothers honestly believe what they teach here; if they are wrong, they will be corrected by Jehovah himself. They have proven themselves wrong and changed accordingly in the past on many things, and will continue to refine their views and what they teach until Jehovah and Jesus themselves can pass on the correct info personally.:-)
Oh, and flip flopping does not a hypocrite make. And, as an EMT, I can tell you that EMERGENCY blood transfusions are almost never done for many health reasons; and, again, no one has ever been disfellowshipped because a transfusion was made without consent, or (as far as I know) for donating blood. Also, I stand corrected by an elder in my hall: Although DFing is the norm, each case is taken by itself and there have been ones who have not been DFed; and he was an elder during the time when they were most anal about it.
That said... read a dictionary. ;-)
Um....Danny's the other one. he's the most prolific anti-JW commenter I've ever seen. His posts are everywhere JWs are mentioned.
I'm sorry for your loss, and I am sure that Jehovah will provide what comfort that is possible to those suffering.
It is important, however, to note that JW's have helped to legally establish (in the United States as well as other countries) freedoms related to speech and medical care. This has benefited society as a whole.
For example, anyone can go door to door and preach their beliefs to others without a permit or harrassment by the police. So, not only have court challenges by JW's allowed them to perform the preaching work, it would also allow a Satanist, Atheist, or anyone else to do the same.
For a while, the "right to die" has been a hot topic in the United States. People making choices to refuse medical care because they feel that their quality of life would not justify certain medical measures. It can be argued that JW's have helped to pioneer that as well, because of the Blood arguments. If a person has a right to refuse a blood transfusion, then that person has a right to refuse recussitation (please excuse my spelling) as well.
If someone is dying and needs a blood transfusion, that is their decision to make. However, if someone chooses against accepting a transfusion, realize that their right to do so is intrically tied into your right to accept or deny any medical care.
Post a Comment