Academic Deception or Incompetence?

___

Given the potential life and death consequent of following the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine one would think its leadership would place a premium on academic honesty and rigor when addressing what sources say about blood and blood transfusion. So what do we find?

The following is an example of the organization’s academic standard as it chooses to address medical use of blood by transfusion therapy[1]:

In the above presentation Watchtower leadership told Jehovah’s Witnesses that Dr. George W. Crile was quoting a letter by a French physician named Denys. There’s at least three problems with this assertion.

First, the material fails to point out this French physician lived in the 17th century when very little was understood about blood transfusion. As readers will see, this cannot be mere incompetence given what the source says in precisely so many words.

Second, Dr. Crile never suggested he was quoting Dr. Denys. As it turns out, Dr. Crile was very specific about who and what he was quoting, and it wasn't Denys.

Third, Dr. Denys never said the words attributed to him by Watchtower. Yes. You read that correctly. Denys never said

the words as presented by Watchtower.

Taking a closer look

Here is what Dr. Crile actually said in his book Hemorrhage and Transfusion (1909)[2]:

When Dr. Crile wrote "In the same year Denys..." he refers to material in his preceeding paragraph dated 1667. So it would be impossible not to know Crile was speaking of views held by a 17th century physician.

Also, Dr. Crile did not suggest he was quoting Denys. Rather, Dr. Crile pointedly showed he was quoting an author by the name of Ore. Specifically Dr. Crile's bibliography references his quoted words to Etudes, Historique, Physiologiques et Clinques sue la Transfusion du Sang, by Par le D' Ore (Paris, 1876). Nowhere does Dr. Crile quote from or say he's quoting Dr. Denys.

Since Dr. Crile quoted Dr. Ore and not Dr. Denys, was Ore quoting Denys?

This is what Dr. Ore wrote[3]:

It takes little to realize Dr. Ore’s work was published in the French language. Given that Denys' view at issue was published in English and not French then at the very least Dr. Ore was translating what Denys said or wrote into the French language.

Here’s what Denys actually wrote[4]:

What Dr. Ore wrote in French is not a translation of Denys' words into French. As it turns out, Ore was paraphrasing what Denys wrote.

So we have this:

- A 17th century physician (Denys) shares his view on blood transfusion, and he does so in the English language.

- A 19th century physician (Ore) paraphrases what Denys said, and he shares this paraphrase in French.

- A 20th century physician (Crile) offered an English translation of Ore’s French paraphrase of what Dr. Denys was thinking.

- Then a 20th Century religious institution (Watchtower) quoted Dr. Crile as quoting Dr. Denys.

What Watchtower really did

Watchtower’s academic standard allowed it to present a statement as quotation of a physician that was pointedly not what that physician said but was, instead, an English translation of a French paraphrase of something published in English more than 300 years prior. So it ends up the Watchtower organization attributed words to a doctor he never actually said.

So what did Denys actually say?

Denys said transfusion of blood was nothing more than we see in nature between a mother and her unborn child where, according to Denys, transfusion of blood between a mother and her unborn child is how the unborn child is fed.

Error and Irony

Denys was in error about transfusion of maternal and fetal blood. Transference between an expectant mother and her fetus is done through the placental organ and not by transfusion.

On the other hand, apparently Watchtower wants its readership to accept the thinking of a 17th century physician. But if readers accept what Denys thought then they would look upon blood transfusion as a natural transference between mother and child and accordingly be left to either accept or decline based purely on personal conscience. Ironically, this natural transference line of reasoning is precisely the approach Watchtower takes toward some but not all blood constituents.[5]

So this instance of Watchtower attributing words to a doctor is an instance of abominable academic integrity and, on top of that, a cherry-picking of what the man actually had to say. More than that, Watchtower's usage of Crile and Denys is a dishonest presentation.

Denys saw nothing whatsoever wrong with blood transfusion, and in fact that nature testifies morally it’s just fine. But Watchtower does not share this with its readers either.

Marvin Shilmer

_____________

References:

1. The Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p. 558.

2. Hemorrhage and Transfusion; An Experimental and Clinical Research, by George W Crile, New York and London, D. Appleton and Company, 1909, Chapter VII, A Brief History of Transfusion, pp. 153-4.

3. Etudes Historiques, Physiologiques et Cliniques sur la Transfusion Du Sang, by Par Le D'Ore, Paris, 1876

4. Denis, A Letter, Philosophical Transactions, 1667, Vol. 2, Num. 27, pp. 489-504.

5. Blood — Transference? 

___