The following appeared in the October 15, 2000 Watchtower:
“Questions From Readers
In the light of Bible commands about the proper use of blood, how do Jehovah’s Witnesses view medical procedures using one’s own blood?
Rather than deciding solely on the basis of personal preference or some medical recommendation, each Christian ought to consider seriously what the Bible says. It is a matter between him and Jehovah.
Jehovah, to whom we owe our lives, decreed that blood should not be consumed. (Genesis 9:3, 4) In the Law for ancient Israel, God limited the use of blood because it represents life. He decreed: “The soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls.” What if a man killed an animal for food? God said: “He must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.” (Leviticus 17:11, 13) Jehovah repeated this command again and again. (Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15:23) The Jewish Soncino Chumash notes: “The blood must not be stored but rendered unfit for consumption by pouring it on the ground.” No Israelite was to appropriate, store, and use the blood of another creature, whose life belonged to God.
The obligation to keep the Mosaic Law ended when the Messiah died. Yet, God’s view of the sacredness of blood remains. Moved by God’s holy spirit, the apostles directed Christians to ‘abstain from blood.’ That command was not to be taken lightly. It was as important morally as abstaining from sexual immorality or idolatry. (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25) When donating and transfusing blood became common in the 20th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses understood that this practice conflicted with God’s Word.
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.
Other procedures or tests involving an individual’s own blood are not so clearly in conflict with God’s stated principles. For instance, many Christians have allowed some of their blood to be withdrawn for testing or analysis, after which the sample is discarded. Other more complex procedures involving one’s blood may also be recommended.
For example, during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.
The details may vary, and new procedures, treatments, and tests will certainly be developed. It is not our place to analyze each variation and render a decision. A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy. Ahead of time, he should obtain from the doctor or technician the facts about what might be done with his blood during the procedure. Then he must decide according to what his conscience permits. (See box [Questions to Ask Yourself])
Christians should bear in mind their dedication to God and obligation ‘to love him with their whole heart, whole soul, whole strength, and whole mind.’ (Luke 10:27) Unlike most in the world, Jehovah’s Witnesses highly treasure their good relationship with God. The Life-Giver urges all to trust in Jesus’ shed blood. We read: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses.”—Ephesians 1:7.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
If some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be ‘poured out on the ground’?
Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into (or onto) my body?” (The Watchtower October 15, 2000 pp. 30-31)
Quoting the Jewish Soncino Chumash, the article states: “No Israelite was to appropriate, store, and use the blood of another creature, whose life belonged to God.” First of all one must ask why is this source quoted from? Leviticus 17:13 is clear when it says blood should be poured out on the ground and covered with dust. There is nothing that needs to be added to make the statement more understandable. However, when examining the quote and comparing it with Leviticus, it becomes obvious that the word “store” does not appear in the verse. This inserted concept, that no Israelite was to store the blood of another creature, is then used as the basis for their argument against autologous blood transfusion. But is that the reason the command to pour the blood out on the ground was given? A footnote in this article states:
“Professor Frank H. Gorman writes: “The pouring out of the blood is best understood as an act of reverence that demonstrates respect for the life of the animal and, thus, respect for God, who created and continues to care for that life.”
Would it be showing disrespect for life if an Israelite were to store the blood of an animal for later use if that did not result in eating it? What about storing it for later sacrificial use? (Lev. 4:5-7,16-18) Obviously it is impossible for blood to be used later in sacrifice unless it was first gathered and stored. So the law did not prohibit blood storage. What mattered was what the stored blood was to be used for. The law only applied to eating the blood of animals that had been slain for food or for sacrifice. There is evidence that even some blood of sacrificial animals was put to some use. According to Jewish authorities, the blood from the temple area passed through conduits to the Kidron Valley where it collected, decomposed and in time was used as fertilizer. It has lost its sacred value, not representing the life of the sacrificial animals anymore. (See Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 83; The Talmud of the Land of Israel translated by Jacob Neusner, vol. 14, Yoma 5:6, D-F)
Aside from the purpose of eating, nothing is said in Leviticus about any other use such stored blood from a creature whose life was taken would be put to. Additionally, if the principle to be gained from this is once blood leaves the body it should be disposed of, then from where do the fractions that the society permits come? The use of blood fractions obviously implies storage of large, even massive, amounts of blood. On the one hand the society allows the use of these fractions and thereby the storage involved to produce them, while on the other hand they say the Bible condemns all storage of blood.
This stance is inherently conflicting since it places Witnesses in the embarrassing position of being willing to use from the donated and stored blood supply but unwilling to replenish the same thing that they are using from. For example, a Witness parent would most likely be appreciative if his or her child’s life was saved as a result of using an acceptable blood fraction. But would that parent be allowed to donate the blood from which that fraction could be taken? No. So, it would be good and fine if that lifesaving act was accomplished by means of someone else’s donated blood but not that from the child’s own parent. Does that make sense? Also, it appears to be the very polar opposite of Christian principle to be willing to accept help from the sacrifice of others but unwilling to offer a sacrifice by which others, perhaps someone else’s child, might benefit. (Matt. 7:12; 22:39)
But where does the law address the use of one’s own blood for a medical procedure to preserve one’s life? Was Noah given instructions prohibiting the use of his own blood? No. Neither was such a question addressed under the Mosaic Law. Clearly then, when the matter came up for discussion in the first century Jerusalem council it involved, not the use of one’s own blood, but the eating of the blood of another creature. Since as the article mentions: “The obligation to keep the Mosaic Law ended when the Messiah died,” it is puzzling as to why the practices under the Mosaic Law need to be brought into the discussion at all! It appears the only reason is because of the statement that the blood of the animal was to be poured out on the ground. (Lev. 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15:23)
This is then used as an argument for what should be done with a person’s own blood once it leaves his body, namely that it should not be stored for later use but be poured out on the ground. The Mosaic law requiring the pouring out of animal blood upon the ground is the sole argument against autologous transfusions. The law that Christians are no longer bound to keep! (Gal. 3:13; Col. 2:14)
This prohibition is entirely meaningless when we comprehend the massive blood storage that is required for many of the permitted blood fractions. Someone had to donate blood that was later stored in order for those fractions to be made available. If Witnesses believe this to be a transgression against God’s law, would not benefiting from the practice by receiving fractions from such stored blood be sharing in the sins of others? Would this not be, in God’s eyes, showing support for a condemned practice? (2 Cor. 6:17; Isa. 52:11; Jer. 51:45; Rev. 18:4)
Oddly enough, the article states:
“during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.” (The Watchtower October 15, 2000 pp. 30-31)
In a 1989 article the society further comments on this technique:
“Since Christians do not let their blood be stored, some physicians have adapted this procedure, arranging the equipment in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient’s circulatory system. Some Christians have accepted this, others 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.” (The Watchtower March 1, 1989 pg. 31)
What this means is that essentially we are to take Acts 15:20,29 to mean that God requires a Christian to abstain even from his own blood once it leaves his body! It would be a violation of God’s law if he were to have it back. But it would be permissible if it could be viewed as not permanently leaving his circulatory system but only an extension of it. The reasoning employed is very much similar to how the first century Pharisees added to God’s law. Consider:
The Pharisees attempted to make God’s law on the Sabbath more explicit:
You must not bring any load out of your homes on the Sabbath day; and you must do no work at all. Keep the Sabbath day sacred, just as I commanded your forefathers. (Jeremiah 17:22)
Yet the Pharisees reasoned that there was no prohibition against carrying things from one part of a house to another part, even if the house were occupied by more than one family.
So, they ruled that people living in houses within a certain sector (such as those living in houses built around a common courtyard), could construct a “legal” doorway for the whole section by erecting door jambs at the street entrance to the section, with perhaps a beam overhead as a lintel. Now, the whole section was viewed as if it were one home and things might be carried around from home to home within the area without violating the law.[1]
Compare now that method of reasoning and use of technicalities with how the Watch Tower Society reasons regarding the aforementioned practice. According to the society, once the blood leaves the body it should be poured out. But then the article goes on to discuss another method, where, during the operation, the patient’s blood is diverted into a heart-lung pump or a hemodialysis machine (artificial kidney device) for oxygenating or filtering before returning into the patient’s body. The article informs its readers that, unlike the other method, this method can be viewed as acceptable by a Christian. Why? Because the Christian can view it “as elongating their circulatory system so that blood might pass through an artificial organ,” and thus feel that “the blood in this closed circuit was still part of them and did not need to be ‘poured out.’”
How is this classifying of the blood as being technically in a “closed circuit” different from the ancient legalism of making a “closed circuit” out of a number of houses by means of an artificial doorway? Thus the governing body attempts to supplement God’s law much the same way as the Pharisees did. In other words, going beyond the things that have been written. (1 Cor. 4:6)
The risk inherent in transfusion of blood and blood components or fractions is real. At the same time it is also true that people can die in surgery due to massive hemorrhaging. The use of one’s own blood, stored until time of surgery, would logically appeal to persons concerned about the possibility of blood-related infections. It is difficult to understand why many thousands of persons are willing to relinquish the right to make their own decision in such crucial matters, allowing an organization to decide for them, even though its history gives evidence of constantly needing to have its policies updated and is one of unwillingness to acknowledge its responsibility for damage that its former policies have produced.
One would think that since much of this doctrine is based on the Old Testament, that Jews would have something valuable to add to the debate. Of course, transfusions were not available in ancient times, so Jews have to apply those rules to this new situation. It is my understanding that Orthodox Jews consider blood transfusions to be acceptable. For instance, Rabbi Ari Enkin writes, “according to Jewish law, “eating” is defined as an act done with the mouth. Food or medications taken through the veins is not considered “eating” in Jewish law and as such, are exempt from kosher laws.” In other words, a blood transfusion is not even equivalent to eating (or intravenous feeding) because the blood so given does not function as food. A blood transfusion is basically a cellular organ transplant.
[1] See Judaism, Vol. II, by George Foot Moore (Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
1954), pages 31,32.