Blood

Blood Transfusion

The Society teaches that to take blood by means of transfusion is forbidden by scripture. For this reason Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood transfusions.

Or do they?

The following is an exerpt from the Witness Inc. publication:
              Blood's out of Body experience OR Do Jehovah's
                         Witnesses take their own blood?
It is presented in question and answer form. All of the documentation for this and the complete book are available in our publication,
        Blood's out of body experience: By Duane Magnani

Q. I want to return to the fact that a Witness patient might well believe that when blood is in the machine it has "CLEARLY [our emphasis] left his body and so should be disposed of" because it's no longer part of his "circulatory system"? Some of your brothers may take that position?

A. Yes.

Q. And Witnesses are justified for believing that when the machine has the blood, the patient doesn't?

A. They are using their consciences; that is the important thing.

Q. Okay. However, let me quote what your leaders specifically claim:

               Since Christians do not let their blood be stored, some physicians
            have adopted this procedure, arranging the equipment in a circuit that
            is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system. Some Christians
            have accepted this, other have refused. Again each individual must
            decide whether he would consider the blood diverted in such a
            hemodilution circuit to be similar to that flowing through a heart/lung
            machine, or he would think of it as blood that left him and therefore
            should be disposed of.

Q. Please help me understand what they mean by that. Is it quite alright for a Witness to believe this described mediacl procedure involves "blood that left him and therefor should be disposed of"?

A. Yes.

Q. And the organization is not telling him that he is wrong--that he is incorrect, medically?

A. No.

Q. So, that a Witness is thinking appropriately if he believes that when his "brother" undergoes that type of procedure, blood is being STORED in the machine?

A. Well, I guess that would be his opinion.

Q. A valid opinion?

A. I certainly won't argue with it.

Q. And that Witness would believe that by undergoing such storage, his spiritual brother was violating the law of God? His "brother" is a LAWBREAKER?

A. He would know it was the conscience of his brother which allowed him to have the procedure.

Q. Answer my question, please.

A. The answer is yes.

Q. There is an actual division among Witnesses over this issue of "intraoperative recirculation," isn't there?

A. Well, the issue is not clear for some.

Q. Why should it be CLEAR? The Society hasn't told them if it is blood storage or not., right?

A. Again, this is a conscience matter.

Q. Not a medical matter?

A. Well, of course it is medical.

Q. We can conclude, can't we, that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to differ about this issue of autologous blood transfusion and whether an operation would force a person to have his blood stored? Some may object, while others find nothing objectionable?

A. Yes, "the reinfusion of a pateint's own blood--is a techniques that some Witnesses may find unobjectionable under certain circumstances."

Q. And has the Society allowed Jehovah's Witnesses to believe that their brothers who undergo such procedures are violating the will of God?

A. Again, it's a personal decision.

Q. And again, Sir, please answer my question.

A. I suppose one could interpret it that way.

Q. But doesn't that go directly against what your leaders have testified to in court regarding "unity"? I am holding a document in wich your former Vice President and a very able been queried about the Society's long-time teaching that Jesus had returned invisibly in the year 1874. Let me read it to you:

            Q. . . .A false prophecy was promulgated?
            A. I agree to that.
            Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?
            A. That is correct. . . Our purpose is to have unity.
            Q. Unity at all costs?
            A. Unity at all costs.
            Q. Unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
            A. That is conceded to be true.

What about that? Has the "unity" broken down?

A. I'm not familiar with that document.

Q. Now, the violation of God's law on blood is very serious, isn't it? As serious as murder?

A. Of course, Witnesses take it very seriously.

Q. As serious as they do the crime of murder?

A. Yes, I would say so.

Q. If the Society allows Witnesses to believe their brothers have violated the law of God on blood, which is like murder--should they do something about it?

A. No, as I stated before, it's a matter of "conscience."

Q. So, Witnesses are to believe violating God's law is just a matter of conscience. I wonder if murder is just a matter of conscience. Is it?

A. Of course not, the Scripture is very clear: "Yous must not murder" (Ex 20:13).

Q. A Witness should know when he murders someone?

A. I think that goes without saying.

Q. Does a Witness know when he violates the blood law?

A. Certainly.

Q. "Certainly" you say! We have just had an example of a medical procedure in which one Witness would believe another Witness has violated God's law! Correct?

A. I have already agreed to that possible conclusion.

Q. Let's turn it around. Could it also be that the Witness who undergoes the procedure thinks his brother who refuses is TOO STRICT--and may be taking a chance with his life, by avoiding the necessary help--A SUICIDAL ACT?

A. I don't know what he would think.

Q. But, one thing's for sure. This may well be a life and death decision, correct?

A. Yes, it may well be.

Q. And Witnesses differ on it?

A. Yes , they have freedom of choice. As I stated before, it is acceptable that a "Christian (who also would not let blood flow from him, be stored for some time, and later be put back into him) might conclude that a circuit with recovery from a surgical site and ongoing reinfusion would not violate his trained conscience.

Q. So, what we now have here is just a little disagreement among Jehovah's Witnesses? Just a little difference of opinion about whether they are breaking God's law on blood--a life and death matter?

A. Well, that's your opinion.

Q. No, Sir. Is that not THEIR OPINION, or should I say: OPINION'S?

This question and answer dialogue is from the book: "Blood's out of Body Experience. To order the entire book complete with photocopy documentation,
go to: Resource Center!