That Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused life saving transfusions of certain products from blood is well known and documented in medical literature. It is also documented within the medical community that Witnesses have accepted transfusions of whole blood and other products from blood forbidden by the religion’s leadership. The reason for this acceptance is simple: the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses has never fully assented to the organization’s religious position on blood.
The controlling organizational body of this religious community is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Watchtower). Since at least 1927 Watchtower has been teaching its membership that they should not eat blood.[1]
As though eating is tantamount to transfusion, in 1944 Watchtower made an assertion that initiated development of its doctrine against accepting blood transfusion. Watchtower wrote[2]:
Thus in 1944 was Watchtower’s first statement against blood transfusion. This position was addressed at greater length in 1945 in the religion’s literature.[3] From this point forward Watchtower regularly taught it was a gross disrespect of God’s will to accept transfusion of blood.[4]
Researchers and professionals in various fields of study have written extensively on this subject in terms of members refusing blood transfusion. In contrast the subject of division within this religious community is comparatively neglected in terms of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepting blood transfusion. Yet from the very beginning of Watchtower’s blood transfusion taboo, members within the religion have expressed disagreement with the official position.
Internal disagreement
During the Nazi regime of the 1930s and 40s Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eastern Europe suffered horrendous persecution up to and including death in concentration camps.[5] These members were willing to suffer and even die because of their sense of Christian faithfulness. Willingness to suffer for their faith is notable in this discussion of blood because of a record of events from the Ravensbrueck camp.
According to her eyewitness account, author Margaret Buber shared that all of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (known then as Bible Students) in the Ravensbrueck camp were willing to eat blood sausage, until about 1943.[6] Despite Watchtower having taught for at least the previous 15 years that members should not eat blood, these members apparently saw nothing wrong with eating blood. Buber reports that in 1943 an “extremist” among the Witnesses found it biblically unacceptable to eat blood. According to Buber this resulted in 25 of the 275 Witness prisoners refusing to eat blood sausage.
So we have a group of religious faithful who were willing to suffer and even die for their faith, yet the vast majority ate blood despite religious teaching against it. This despite a minority of fellow worshippers on hand who refused for biblical reasons, and despite having options of what to eat. Gertrude Poetzinger, a longtime and reputable Jehovah’s Witness, confirms Buber’s account of life at Ravensbrueck among her religious group. Gertrude Poetzinger was herself confined to Ravensbrueck for 4 years, and later on was stationed at Watchtower’s world headquarters with her husband who was a member of the religion’s top Governing Body.[7]
In 1945 Watchtower published the first article addressing the organization’s blood doctrine in great detail. Therein we find the following statement speaking of the 1944 instance of Watchtower disapproving of blood transfusion[8],
Hence starting with Watchtower’s first instance of teaching against blood transfusion we find members of the religion disagreeing with the doctrinal position, saying the position was not applicable to Christians.
Disagreement from the religion’s membership did not cease despite repeated instruction from Watchtower that transfusion was sinful. In 1949 the organization published another extensive article on the subject.[9] This resulted in Watchtower again receiving letters from its membership expressing disagreement, and the organization responded by publishing replies in its primary journal The Watchtower.[10] Of its position against transfusion of blood, one of these letters from Watchtower states[11],
With that remark Watchtower confirmed the existence of division among Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to its blood doctrine. Characterizing the extent of replies disputing Watchtower’s teaching against blood transfusion, the same letter states[12],
Internal division on Watchtower’s blood doctrine led to some Witnesses refusing blood transfusions and others accepting blood transfusions.[13]
Internal disagreement despite severe personal repercussion
In 1961 Watchtower began enforcing its doctrinal position on blood among Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is, members who conscientiously accept blood transfusion were made subject to the organization’s organized communal shunning policy. This shunning is severe. It requires members to avoid all social fellowship with the individual. Even immediate family members who do not live in the same house are to shun the individual by avoiding association, including keeping even family business dealings to an “absolute minimum”. In effect, this shunning transforms the target individual into a social outcast who should not be recognized with as much as a “Hello” .[14] This shunning is imposed for life or until the individual “repents” of their sin, whichever comes first.[15] Despite this severe personal threat for conscientious acceptance of blood transfusion, Witnesses continued accepting the therapy anyway.[16]
In the last few years hundreds of Watchtower’s internal organizational letters have been made public. In these letters the religion’s leadership expresses serious concern regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses activating and maintaining documents important to avoiding transfusion against Watchtower’s doctrine.
A 1993 letter cites reports that up to 50% of the membership had failed to maintain up-to-date Medical Directive cards leaving members unprotected from routine transfusions.[17]
A 2000 letter reports that a large majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses had not completed Watchtower’s provided Durable Power of Attorney document for members that would require medical providers to refrain from administering blood to the individual.[18]
These failures were in the face of decades of the religion teaching its membership that completing such documentation is crucial.[19]
In a series of letters written between 1998 and 2003 a Watchtower appointed official wrote the religion’s leadership arguing that blood transfusions should not be prohibited by church doctrine. Watchtower understood this church official rejected its blood doctrine by admitting in response to him[20],
A 2004 letter to Watchtower by another appointed official expressed similar disagreement with church teaching.[21]
External observation
External sources document that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not uniformly support Watchtower’s blood doctrine.
In 1982 Drs Larry J. Findley and Paul M. Redstone surveyed a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to evaluate individual belief regarding Watchtower’s blood doctrine.[22] Watchtower appointed officials in the congregation knew of the survey and cooperated by supplying contact information. The result found that about 10% of the respondents would accept blood products forbidden by the church’s doctrine. Because congregation members knew local elders would see the survey results, Findley and Redstone share an opinion of their finding by stating,
Hence, if anything, the finding by Findley and Redstone is an understatement of how many among Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing to accept blood products forbidden under Watchtower’s doctrine.
In 1995 Dr. Kaaron Benson found that most parents among Jehovah’s Witnesses permitted transfusions for their minor children, and that many younger adults made the same choice for themselves.[23] Overall she found that about 10% of the Witness patients or their guardians were willing to accept blood transfusion.
In their 2004 review of documents completed by 61 pregnant Jehovah’s Witness from 1997 to 2002, Drs Cynthia Gyamfi and Richard L. Berkowitz found that about 10% of these patients were willing to accept specific transfusion therapies contrary to the religion’s policy.[24] Gyamfi and Berkowitz concluded overall,
In the book Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery authors Randy Henderson, Nicolas Jabbour, MD and Gary Zeger, MD apparently recognize that not all Jehovah’s Witnesses agree with Watchtower’s blood doctrine by stating “These primary components are unacceptable to devout Jehovah’s Witnesses.”[25] (Italic added)
Conclusion
Though the Watchtower organization frequently asserts the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses uniformly accepts and abides by its blood doctrine, the fact is the religion’s community has always been divided on this issue between those believing it wrong and those believing it right to accept blood transfusions.
Based on what medical reviews are available, it is safe to say there is a strong and consistent minority among Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe it acceptable to have blood transfusion therapy. This is also consistent with anecdotal experience among clinicians.
Based on internal Watchtower letters the level of dissent may be much higher, potentially even a majority of the membership. Until the religion’s leadership ceases its policing and shunning policy for members who conscientiously accept blood transfusion, whatever is the majority view will be difficult to assess.[26] Only after this coercive policy changes will members be free to openly express disagreement with the present doctrine and openly accept blood transfusion.
It is a myth that all Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusion. Many members of this religious community do not believe it wrong to accept blood transfusion therapy. Given the Watchtower organization’s police-state policy of having members report “sin” by fellow members, and the resulting vulnerability of being made subject to the religion’s severe organized communal shunning policy, medical providers should take care that each patient presenting as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses has ample opportunity to express their personal preferences of treatment outside the presence of any other member of the faith, including close family members.
It is as Drs Gyamfi and Berkowitz write[27]:
It is true of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not all of them agree with the leadership’s religious position on blood transfusion[28]:
Even Jehovah’s Witnesses who abide by the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine are in fact accepting transfusions of blood because the current doctrine leaves members to accept literally everything from blood so long as it is sufficiently fractionated beforehand.[29]
Marvin Shilmer
______________
References
1. The Watchtower, December 15, 1927 pp. 371-372.
2. The Watchtower, December 1, 1944 p. 362.
3. The Watchtower, July 1, 1945 pp 195-204.
4. Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, published by Watchtower, 1993 p. 183.
5. Johannes S. Wrobel, Jehovah’s Witnesses in National Socialist Concentration Camps, 1933 – 45, Religion, State & Society, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2006 pp 89-125.
6. Buber, M., translated by Edmund Fitzgerald, Under Two Dictators, London, Victor Gollancz LTD, 1949.
7. The Watchtower, June 15, 1981 p. 7.
8. The Watchtower, July 1, 1945 pp 199.
9. Awake!, published by Watchtower, September 22, 1949 pp 25-27.
10. The Watchtower, March 1, 1950 pp 79-80; The Watchtower, May 1, 1950 pp 143-144; The Watchtower, May 15, 1950 pp 158-159.
11. The Watchtower, May 1, 1950 pp 143-144.
12. The term sanction is here referring to approval.
13. The Watchtower, October 1, 1954 p 605; The Watchtower, August 1, 1958 p 478.
14. Our Kingdom Ministry, published by Watchtower, August 2002 pp. 3-4.
15. Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will, published by Watchtower, 2005 pp 156-157.
16. The Watchtower, October 15, 1987 p 14.
17. Letter to All Bodies of Elders in the United States, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, December 1, 1993.
18. Letter to All Bodies of Elders in the United States, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, December 1, 2000.
19. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, published by Watchtower, 1977 p. 78; Our Kingdom Ministry, published by Watchtower, November 1990 p. 3.
20. Letter to R. Jensen, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, May 30, 2001.
21. Open Letter on the Prohibition Against Blood To the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Philippe Andre, Brussels, Belgium, October 26, 2004.
22. Larry J. Findley, MD and Paul M. Redstone, MD, Blood Transfusion in Adult Jehovah’s Witnesses A Case Study of One Congregation, Arch Intern Med, March 1982; Vol. 142 pp. 606-607.
23. Kaaron Benson, Special Article: Management of the Jehovah's Witness Oncology Patient, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute Cancer Control Journal, Vol. 2, No. 6, November/December 1995.
24. Cynthia Gyamfi, MD and Richard L. Berkowitz, MD, Responses by Pregnant Jehovah’s Witnesses on Health Care Proxies, Obstet and Gynecol Vol. 104, No. 3, September 2004 pp 541-544.
25. Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery, edited by Nicolas Jabbour, Blackwell Publishing, 2005 p. 2.
26. The Watchtower, September 15, 1987 pp 12-15; Courtney S. Campbell, The pure church and the problem of confidentiality, The Hastings Center Report Feb-March 1988 v18 n1 p2(1) p. 1.
27. Cynthia Gyamfi, MD and Richard L. Berkowitz, MD, In reply to Letter to Editor, Obstet and Gynecol Vol. 105, No. 2, February 2005 pp 442-443.
28. J Guichon, I Mitchell, Free and informed choice in medical treatment: making it safe to choose for Jehovah’s witnesses, BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 116, Issue 11, p. 1540.
28. See the articles:
● Watchtower Leadership – Believe Its Own Blood Doctrine?
● Watchtower Blood Doctrine Facts
● Outrageous Omission – Blood
___
0 comments:
Post a Comment