|
WATCHTOWER ISSUES DOUBLE STANDARD
ON BLOOD TRANSFUSION
A lawsuit over human rights by the Watchtower Society against the government
of Bulgaria has resulted in the sect issuing conflicting statements about its
ban on blood transfusions. For over a half-century, the Watchtower has placed
in jeopardy the lives of its members with a restriction on accepting blood transfusions.
The longstanding policy of the organization has been that ?the receiver of a
blood transfusion must be cut off from God?s people by excommunication or disfellowshiping?
(The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1961, pg. 64).
In mid-1997, the Christian Association of Jehovah?s Witnesses petitioned
the European Commission on Human Rights, alleging that its members were victims
of persecution at the hands of the Bulgarian government. Government officials
from Bulgaria maintained that their conduct was warranted because the Watchtower
teaches ?disrespect for the democratic institutions? and ?does not have respect
for human life as it requires [members] to refuse blood transfusion even when
this brings death.?
According to a July 1997 press communiqué issued by the Secretary
to the European Commission of Human Rights, the Watchtower apparently disavowed
its harmful prohibition. The dispatch stated that, ?In respect of the refusal
of blood transfusion, the applicant association submits that there are no religious
sanctions for a Jehovah?s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and
that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah?s Witnesses
is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ?public health?.?
The Watchtower apparently repeated this new position. A communiqué
last March from the European Commission announced that, ?The applicant undertook
with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion
in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter
for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part
of the association.?
David Reed, a former Jehovah?s Witness, suggests three possible explanations
for the new stance: 1) The action is merely ?theocratic war strategy? (i.e.,
permissible lying to its enemies); 2) The Society believes that the anomaly
could be confined to the small country of Bulgaria and that word of it would
not spread outside Bulgaria; or 3) Ground work is being laid for a withdrawal
of its ban on blood transfusions.
Reed also notes that the concessions made in Bulgaria will have far-reaching
effects: ?The JW leadership?s agreement to stop enforcing its ban on blood will
automatically affect Jehovah?s Witnesses throughout Europe because the European
Commission of Human Rights is an agency of the Council of Europe, with its decisions
serving as legal precedent for member states.?
In late April, the Watchtower issued formal word of an ?amicable settlement
agreed to by the Government of Bulgaria and the Christian Association of Jehovah?s
Witnesses.? However, the news release from the Public Affairs Office of the
Brooklyn-based sect which announced the ?settlement? carefully shrouded the
free choice on blood by stating only, ?The agreement also includes an acknowledgement
that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment
he receives.? It further added to the deception by stating, ?The terms of the
agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrines of Jehovah?s Witnesses.?
During the past several years, the Watchtower has experienced pressure to
suspend its prohibition on blood transfusions from a group calling itself, ?The
Associated Jehovah?s Witnesses for Reform on Blood ? Elders and Hospital Liaison
Committee Members.?
?MKG
© 1998 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. This
article may not be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission. Reproduction
is prohibited, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial
purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O.
Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.
|