Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 83
would at the least permit their non-Witness ex-spouse to make the decision (that would in
essence allow the child to have a blood transfusion) even though this is contrary to
Watchtower policy that must be followed under pain of total expulsion:
If a Christian is asked to submit to something that would be a violation of
God‘s higher law, the divine law comes first it takes precedence [and if a
court] ...authorized the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian ...
Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did ―we must
obey God as ruler rather than men‖--Acts 5:29 ...[and must be] absolutely
determined to obey God even if a government directed them otherwise
(Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31).
The Society stresses the degree to which this Watchtower rule is to be enforced by citing
the example of a twelve year old who:
left no doubt that ―she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all
the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she
would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy
the blood in the bag over her bed.‖ She was firmly resolved to obey the
[Watchtower‘s ruling on] divine law. (Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31)
A problem for the Watchtower is that no Scripture exists that clearly and directly condemns
the medical use of blood or any other organ transplant, and many Scriptures condone their
use to save lives (Bergman, 1999). Even the Society has historically allowed blood
transfusion—it was not a disfellowshipping offense until 1961, almost a century after the
Society‘s founding (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1961, pp. 63-64). The average Witness accepts
these doctrinal changes because of the ―new light‖ doctrine, meaning that they believe
God‘s will is progressively revealed through the Watchtower. The necessity of avoiding
transfusions includes prohibiting placing oneself in the position where a transfusion could
occur, and if a court ordered transfusion seems likely, a Witness must:
put forth strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God‘s law on blood [and if]
authorities ...consider him a law-breaker or make him liable to prosecution ...
the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness
(Watchtower, June 15, 1991, p. 31).
As Duron notes, Witnesses are instructed to die rather than submit to a transfusion:
Witnesses seldom actually state succinctly that they would not hesitate to
allow their minor children to die rather than to allow the child to receive a
blood transfusion‖ (1991, p. 18).
Watchtower attorney Wah said under oath that she has represented adults in two
situations:
… who, while conscious and competent, a court order was obtained
authorizing physicians to transfuse them. It would be my position that such
an order was illegally obtained and the Christian, as an adult, would certainly
fight it and that could include physically. … It is in my mind, and the best
analogy would be compared to rape. For myself, as an adult, to be raped by
court order, the presence of a court order is no justification for it. But that
becomes quite a different situation if I had a minor child who was under
court‘s order, just as it would be a different situation for self-defense. …
(Hetrick v. Hetrick, Court of Common pleas of Blair County, PA, No. 2240 CP,
1991, p. 234, Wah Testimony).
If a blood transfusion is equal in seriousness to rape as Wah maintains, one would hardly
allow a person to ―rape‖ your child!
would at the least permit their non-Witness ex-spouse to make the decision (that would in
essence allow the child to have a blood transfusion) even though this is contrary to
Watchtower policy that must be followed under pain of total expulsion:
If a Christian is asked to submit to something that would be a violation of
God‘s higher law, the divine law comes first it takes precedence [and if a
court] ...authorized the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian ...
Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did ―we must
obey God as ruler rather than men‖--Acts 5:29 ...[and must be] absolutely
determined to obey God even if a government directed them otherwise
(Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31).
The Society stresses the degree to which this Watchtower rule is to be enforced by citing
the example of a twelve year old who:
left no doubt that ―she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all
the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she
would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy
the blood in the bag over her bed.‖ She was firmly resolved to obey the
[Watchtower‘s ruling on] divine law. (Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31)
A problem for the Watchtower is that no Scripture exists that clearly and directly condemns
the medical use of blood or any other organ transplant, and many Scriptures condone their
use to save lives (Bergman, 1999). Even the Society has historically allowed blood
transfusion—it was not a disfellowshipping offense until 1961, almost a century after the
Society‘s founding (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1961, pp. 63-64). The average Witness accepts
these doctrinal changes because of the ―new light‖ doctrine, meaning that they believe
God‘s will is progressively revealed through the Watchtower. The necessity of avoiding
transfusions includes prohibiting placing oneself in the position where a transfusion could
occur, and if a court ordered transfusion seems likely, a Witness must:
put forth strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God‘s law on blood [and if]
authorities ...consider him a law-breaker or make him liable to prosecution ...
the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness
(Watchtower, June 15, 1991, p. 31).
As Duron notes, Witnesses are instructed to die rather than submit to a transfusion:
Witnesses seldom actually state succinctly that they would not hesitate to
allow their minor children to die rather than to allow the child to receive a
blood transfusion‖ (1991, p. 18).
Watchtower attorney Wah said under oath that she has represented adults in two
situations:
… who, while conscious and competent, a court order was obtained
authorizing physicians to transfuse them. It would be my position that such
an order was illegally obtained and the Christian, as an adult, would certainly
fight it and that could include physically. … It is in my mind, and the best
analogy would be compared to rape. For myself, as an adult, to be raped by
court order, the presence of a court order is no justification for it. But that
becomes quite a different situation if I had a minor child who was under
court‘s order, just as it would be a different situation for self-defense. …
(Hetrick v. Hetrick, Court of Common pleas of Blair County, PA, No. 2240 CP,
1991, p. 234, Wah Testimony).
If a blood transfusion is equal in seriousness to rape as Wah maintains, one would hardly
allow a person to ―rape‖ your child!
