Organ Transplants

Not only is it easy to do it without blood it is actually beneficial because of the dangers of blood use.

As for the residue of blood in the organ, you are quite right, but it is not important.

Why? Because as with everything in Christian Law abstaining from blood is a principle rather than a rigid law, and in fact even when it was part of teh Mosaic Law it was still qualified.

How?

Well start by considering it again from the position f simple taking blood into the body, by any method, and think about what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:23-30 "All things are lawful; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful; but not all things build up. 24 Let each one keep seeking, not his own [advantage], but that of the other person.
25 Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?"

What is Paul's message there?

Taken as a whole the message is that you should worry less about your own conscience than the conscience of anmy who may be watching or listening.

Meat sold in the markets often had an unknown origin. It could have been completely kosher, or it could, and often did, represents the leftovers from sacrifices,even pagan ones? How was the Christian to know? Would asking the trader elicit and honest answer?

No, there is no way any Christian could know, so don't bother asking, just buy eat and give thanks. As long as you have not deliberately ignored the blood principle God understands our need to sustain life.

On top of that, no meat is completely devoid of blood, so draining it is simply showing respect for the principle involved.

Now apply those principles to the operation.

When you do you will realise that the very small amount of residual blood is not a problem any more than it was in the steak you ate when last you had one. So provided you have done all you can to make sure that no extraneous blood is used, and none in the actual surgery you have fulfilled the principle, and that is all that matters.

It is also unavoidable that much of the blood in the organ will already have drained out of it.

Christianity is not a case of having to stick to the letter of the law because there is no law in that sense. Ironically, that seems to make it more difficult for people because it puts the responsibility squarely on their shoulders, where in fact it belongs. They cannot point to a law and use that as a reason to do, or not to do, something. The only motivation remaining to them is love of God and a desire to please Him. Some people need others to tell them what they can or cannot do, Christians have to learn to rely on their own powers of reasoning.



I am afraid so. Reality isn't always as kind as we would like it to be, there is no point in nursing illusions about what does or doesn't happen, accepting reality is the only logical course, uncomfortable as it may be at times.

I guess that is all part of my "truth at all costs" attitude to life.

I could probably have been a little more tactful in how I said it, the page with "tact" on has never been in my dictionary I am afraid, though I do try not to be too brutal with my honesty. Freely admit that sometimes I am somewhat too blunt, but I guess it is the way I prefer people to be with me so I would be hypocritical not to be so myself.

I think every country needs to adopt an opt-out system rather than an opt-in one. There's too many problems with an opt-in system, not enough people are aware of it and then there's still the fact that even if you do opt to be an organ donor your next of kin can still refuse for your organs to be donated. And as someone said, it's not like it's hard to become an organ donor (it's a bit more than just signing a piece of paper, but it's only a little extra writing ) and it's not like we need our organs once we're gone...

Since JW's view having a blood transfusion to be equivalent to eating blood how come they don't view having an organ transplant to be equivalent to eating human flesh?

Sounds good but this does not reflect reality in the JW community. The JW's governing body does tell them what they can and can't do with various blood components even though the Bible says nothing about blood components. Just one example will suffice to make the point. JW's are free to take hemoglobin but are forbidden from taking platelets. If a JW's takes platelets and maintains they have done nothing wrong, they will be disfellowshipped and shunned. So much for MCB's claim that Christians have to learn to rely on their own powers of reasoning.

JW's are not free to rely on their own powers of reasoning. Doing so will get them disfellowshipped and shunned. And on what grounds? MCB says there is no law on blood. Well, I agree there certainly is no law forbidding certain blood components while allowing others. So on what grounds is taking platelets a disfellowshipping offense?

Yes they have to learn to rely on their own powers of reasoning, their perceptive powers, but that entails learning to use their reasoning powers in the way that God would want them to, which entails getting to Know God and what he wants. Hebrews 5:14 "But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong."

It is the same principle that applies to free will. We are supposed to use our free will in a Godly way, not just in any way we happen to want to.

Lol, you really don't get it do you, despite the number of times I have explained it to you. You seem to have a mental block when it comes to anything JW.

The Governing body did neither more nor less that their first century equivalents in that they did their best to make a reasonable interpretation of the law. A ruling based solely on biblical principles.

If you think the Governing Body were wrong in their efforts to fulfil their scriptural role, then you obviously think that the 1st century "Governing Body" the "Apostles and Older Men in Jerusalem".

There are dozens of different aspects to the blood issue, most of which I doubt you have ever even considered. Would you like me to go through them all with you? It would take an awful lot of space on here to do so.

Would you rather they said no blood at all, in any form, in any way? If they did that then meat would be off the menu completely, and yet the Apostles were not as Pharisaical as you are on these issues as a study of the NT will show you.

In the days of the original "Governing Body, blood components were not an issue, so when the Brothers and Sisters asked for a ruling, the Governing Body did their best to provide one. I doubt it's perfect, but then neither are they, but if it is unacceptable to God He will let them know in His own time.

Also it is not a point of the Governing Body declaring things you cannot have, they have actually done the exact opposite and removed some things out from under the ban.

Incidentally, you say that taking some blood components is a disfellowshipping offence, and technically you are right, but have you any idea how hard it is to disfellowship anyone? Somehow I doubt it. It isn't simply case of "do this and you're out". Even when one does something which is a disfellowshipping offence there are a number of discussion sessions to go through.

First the Elders have to be sure that the "accused" really did know that what they were doing was wrong. Next there are sessions to either help the "accused" to realise how wrong they were and repent. If, after that, the "accused" is still unrepentant, and only then, is that one disfellowshipped. Disfellowshipping is most definitely a last resort. That's probably why those that do get disfellowshipped are often bitter about the experience, like you, they assume that they are right and the Governing Body wrong, despite the fact that these ones have a commission from God to guide and care for the sheep.

The Disfellowshipping process can take weeks.

Do you have an agenda? It certainly seems like it.

Back about 20 years ago (or was it 200 years ago?) I added 'Organ Donor' to my Driver's License for the same moral principle....and this may explain why life feels like more of a simulation nowadays than it used to.

It's not very hard to disfellowship someone for taking a forbidden blood component if the person is unrepentent. But how hard it is to do so is beside the point. There is no scriptural basis for disfellowshipping anyone for taking any blood component. I've asked you a dozen times to provide the Biblical basis for your governing body's decision to make taking platelets a disfellowshipping offense while imposing no sactions on those that take hemoglobin. You simply refuse to answer the question. That you accuse me of having an agenda for asking such a logical question shows all the readers here who actually has an agenda.

The only argument against this I've heard is what if that donee ends up doing a lot of bad with your organs. As in, next Hitler.

But talking in pure scientific talk. Most people die at old age. If you're young and die, you either already have problems, you're in accident, and/or you weren't think that you would die so soon and so had not applied to be organ donor. So back to the dying in old age thing... most organs before being transplanted need to go through rigorous testing. They don't want to put and old heart in a thirty year old's body. They cannot put a old heart in a 9 year olds body (they need a another young heart of a donor similar in age). You then have to think about damage such as smoking, cocaine use and whatever else people get into these days. Legally, if something happens like if you're 90 and you slipped and fell and thus died, they cannot use your organs even if you're an organ donor because a mandatory autopsy has to be done to rule out anything and by the time all that is done, it's too late to donate. We need supply, but the supply in many ways needs to be versatile, unique, and diverse. Donating when you die though would help massively, I agree.

On the level of morality, I don't know where I stand on that. Morality is (once again) subjective and differs from culture to culture. I grew up in a culture where organ donation is considered morally wrong. So to me there is this inherent aversion to donating my body parts because it's how I was brought up to think. I've come around since then AM a donor now, but I still don't know if is morally right or wrong. I rather not even apply morals to it, but rather appeal to compassion which doesn't need morals to make a decision.

There is scriptural basis for disfellowshipping an unrepentant sinner.

Anyone who takes blood is by definition a sinner.

Therefore any who use blood for the maintenance of life can be disfellowshipped.

The Governing Body have made concessions allowing certain blood components to be used rather than a total ban on all as the original 1st century Governing Body decreed, because they knew about medical use of blood, but blood components were not available at the time of the original decision, so the original Governing Body could not include them in their decision.

This is a concession.

You are looking at things from the wrong end, you should not be concerned that some are banned, rather you should be happy that some are allowed.

Since trying to discuss this as with an adult has not worked, I have removed any presumption that you are a reasoning adult from my answer and related the facts as if you were a young child. Is that any clearer now, because if it isn't then you are being totally unreasonable.

I understand that, but that doesn't answer my question. I want to know (and every JW should want to know) what Biblical basis the governing body used to determine that some blood components are acceptable while other blood components are forbidden. What Biblical or logical basis is there for forbidding platelets but not hemoglobin? Neither one is individually blood. They are both components of blood. And hemoglobin makes up a much larger percentage of what constitutes blood than does platelets. So what is the basis for a concession on hemoglobin but not platelets? Either allow all components of blood or ban all components of blood but there simply is no logical or Biblical basis for determining that taking some components of blood should be a disfellowshipping offense while taking other components of blood should carry no sanctions whatsoever.

I would suggest all of you read "The Undead: Organ Harvesting, the Ice-Water Test, Beating Heart Cadavers--How Medicine Is Blurring the Line Between Life and Death" before making the decision of becoming an organ donor...



One of the sections talk about the extensive research being done into the fact that all of the studied donors have a pain response up to 5 days after the life ending incident, even after the administration of anesthesia...

That's pretty much what I've decided as well. I have a problem with my survivors spending thousands of dollars on a box they will bury in the ground a week after buying it and never look at again. I'll be done with my body by then...I'd rather they take that money and do something useful with it.

I've more or less decided to have my body given to a medical school.

After reading this, and since it is in religion and philosophy...Im gonna be a stinker and ask if we are all gods children, and we were all made in gods image,..likeness what have you and Adam and eve were the first etc. etc......then why are they're different blood types and why is it that the body can reject it even if it is the right blood type ?....we should have interchangeable parts right?

No, all our response shows is tat you are determined to be Pharisaic about it.

As I have already said. the decision was made using the original decision and the motivation behind it as model, and with biblical principle firmly in mid, and since Christians are under principle not law, that was the important thing to consider.

I do not know exactly what their thinking was, and I don't need to, neither does any JW need to. All that matters is that they have done their best to fulfil their role as guardians of the faith of the Brothers and Sister, just as the 1st century equivalent did. They have used the biblical principle of not using blood to sustain life and decreed that some components are allowed and not others. Right or worng they have done their best in the circumstances, and That is all God demands of any of us.

God is obviously happy enough with their efforts or something would have been revealed to counter what they said, however that is not to say that won't happen,just that it hasn't yet.

Again I say that the biblical basis for their decision is contained in the phrase "we, and the Holy Spirit, would add not further burden to you than these necessary things". In other words, the modern day Governing body have made their decision based on current medical knowledge, which was not available to the 1st century equivalent, with every endeavour to comply with Biblical Principle.

As I have also said in the past, they may or may not be right in the detail of their decision, but that is relatively unimportant which you would know of you knew God and Christ. As Christ illustrated by his actions on earth God is not one to be concerned about the letter of the law, and is much more interested in people's motivations. I know the motivations of the Governing Body are good, and I am sure that God accepts them, mistakes and all, with that in mind.

Try thinking about the principles behind the blood ruling, both in the 1st century and now, forget the legalistic arguments, think principle, and you just may start to realise what Christianity is all about. It is not about slavish obedience to hard and fast rules.

Even the blood law was, and is, based on principle.

The principle of relying on God to preserve life, or to retstore it in the resurrection whcihever He chooses, just as Abraham did when he was prepared to go as far as sacrificing the son of his old age. (Hebrews 11:17-19) "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative way."

I don't know how many more ways I can explain it. You are obviously determined to look at the issue from the Pharisaical, legalistic, viewpoint, that caused the 1st century Governing Body to have to make their decision, kin the face of demands for "legislation" to lessen their need to make their own decisions.

Start thinking Principle and stop thinking Law. If you cannot do that you will never be able to be a Christian.