Blood Transfusion

REVIVING A DEAD PERSON By Transfusion of Blood, Said to Be Possible. The miracle of bringing the dead back to life, Dr. A. L. Soresi of Fordham University thinks, will be a scientific achievement of the future. Dr. Soresi, who is attached to the staff of the Flower Hospital, for five years has conducted experiments on the transfusion of blood, with results, he says, that are amazing. Prof. Soresi here told of saving the life of a male patient whose body was apparently moribund. After the explanation of his experiments with the transfusion of blood in animals, Prof. Soresi said: “An experiment with a male pneumonia patient was perhaps not as spectacular, but more gratifying in results. This patient was entirely without respiration by all tests applied, and therefore actually moribund to human knowledge, when I made a transfusion of blood from a normal man through the jugular vein of the patient. The return to life was prompt and recovery followed in due course. “If such transfusions could be made promptly, the loss of life would be materially lowered. “In a recent experiment at Flower Hospital, I pumped all the blood from a dog until the animal lay absolutely lifeless. For sixteen minutes I allowed the animal to remain without a spark of life. The heart had stopped beating and every function of life had ceased. “I connected the blood vessels of the dog with those of another dog and permitted the blood to flow. Inside of five minutes there was a complete return of life, and the dog soon was yelping in an entirely normal way. Other experiments with dogs have yielded amazing results. “When the way has been found to connect directly with the left side of the heart, medical science will be able to restore human beings to life after all animation has been suspended, provided there is no organic trouble. The resuscitation will be effective in cases of gas or drug poisonings, hemorrhages, and such diseases as typhoid and pneumonia. Sudden death by accident, when no vital organ has been crippled, will fall within the scope of the transfusion method. “Under the new science, it will be possible to restore life after it has been extinct for half an hour. I am devoting most of my time to these experiments, and hope before long to be able to make an important announcement to the world of science.”

Gives Eleven Gallons of Blood Mr. B. W. Tibble of London, England, has on forty-five different occasions given a pint of blood for transfusion to patients in the London Hospital. The usual fee is five guineas (twenty-five dollars), but Tibble has always refused to receive any pay for his services. He has been made a life governor of the hospital and been honored with an Order by the king.

Humanity Has a Good Heart The good heart of humanity never showed to better advantage than the other day in Philadelphia. A little lad needed a blood transfusion to save his life. An appeal was broadcast, and within a few minutes fifteen hundred people had responded, urging that they be given an opportunity to give some of their blood to keep the little fellow alive. What a striking answer this is to those who still hold to the worn-out theory that God, in whose image man was created, has a great plan for torturing to eternity almost everybody. In the face of this exhibition of human goodness, anybody ought to be able to see that the eternal torture theory is false from beginning to end.

Orange Juice and Blood Transfusion The editor of Health Culture, while acknowledging with much appreciation the many splendid acts of self-denial on behalf of others which have been performed by blood transfusion, says that, as far as his experience goes, one cup of sweet orange juice by mouth answers any emergency in which blood transfusions would be used. His observations in hospitals do not prove to him that transfusion is either necessary or reliable.

Blood Sellers in New York ACCORDING to the health authorities there are now 8,000 persons in New York who are trying to make a living by selling their blood for transfusion purposes. The number is three times what it was a year ago. The hard times are offered as an explanation. The blood sellers must be licensed.

Canning Human Blood in Russia Doctor Alan Hirsch, returning to New York from a visit to Russia, reports that in that country human blood is now’ preserved for use in transfusion. The blood used is that obtained immediately follow’ing death by accident of healthy persons. Can’t help but wonder if there is any connection between the mysterious disappearances of those not congenial to the Soviet state and this sudden supply of fresh blood obtained from the accidental death of healthy persons.

Using the Blood of Suicides It has been discovered that, if used within a few hours after death, the blood of suicides, or those who die of heart disease, or skull fracture, can be used for transfusion purposes to save the lives of the living. This is now done regularly in the Moscow hospital.

Italians Were Well Equipped ◆ Dr. Norman Bethune, Canadian surgeon, and head of the Spanish-Canadian Institute for Blood Transfusion, back home after seven months' service in Spain, said that more Spanish people offered themselves for blood transfusion purposes than could be used. The morale was very high. The food was also much better. The Italians helped, albeit unintentionally. He says: After their rout at Guadalajara we ate spaghetti and drank Italian wine for weeks. And an entire loyalist brigade equipped itself with first-class Italian boots, machine guns and supply trucks! Fifteen thousand fresh Italian troops landed in Spain the third week in June.

Keep Children Away from Bears ◆ At Larder Lake, Ontario, the parents of a two-year-old child allowed him to offer a piece of bread to a chained bear. The bear reached out, knocked the child down and bit him so savagely that it took three men to club him off, and a blood transfusion was necessary to save the child’s life. This is a second case of this kind in recent years. The Watchtower proves that imprisonment of wild animals is unscriptural. The bear was not himself. If free to roam he would probably never have attacked the child. The bear was killed.

The Mending of a Heart ◆ In New York city a housewife in moving a boarder’s things accidentally shot herself through the heart with his revolver. She was rushed to a hospital, her left breast was cut around, four ribs were cut away, the heart was lifted out, three stitches were taken, one of the attending physicians in the great emergency gave a quart of his blood for transfusion, and today the woman lives and smiles gaily over what happened to her in the busiest 23 minutes of her life.

32 Not only as a descendant of Noah, but now also as one bound by God’s law to Israel which incorporated the everlasting covenant regarding the sanctity of life-sustaining blood, the stranger was forbidden to eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by the mouth. (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10-14) Even the touching and eating of a dead carcass not slain by man for needed food required him to undergo cleansing according to God’s law.

Dangers of Blood Transfusion According to God’s law, humans are not to take into their system the blood of others. “Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” “Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee.” (Leviticus 7:27; Deuteronomy 12:25) In addition to the danger of disobeying God’s law, blood transfusion involves health hazards.

Is Blood Transfusion Scriptural? MANY people today think that blood transfusion in medical practice is a recent innovation. But not so! It is thousands of years old. Did it originate with God? Was it a feature of the Theocratic organization of Jehovah and according to His law given through Moses to the Israelites? This question may arise, in view of the International News Service dispatch from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated July 11, 1948: “A cargo of 13,000 pounds of blood plasma and medical supplies for the infant State of Israel will be flown to the Holy Land tomorrow from Philadelphia. . . . Included in the cargo are 1,000 pounds of plasma, 2,000 blood transfusion sets, 10,000 units of gas gangrene anti-toxin and 216,000 hypodermic needles. The shipment was prepared by American representatives of the Red Star of David, Israel's equivalent of the Red Cross.” The practice of blood transfusion, however, did not originate with God’s organization, and for very fundamental reasons not. It originated with the enemies of Israel and of God. Concerning this The Encyclopedia Americana, revised edition of 1929, says on page 113, column one, of Volume 4, the following: “Transfusion of blood dates as far back as the time of the ancient Egyptians. The earliest reported case is that practiced on Pope Innocent VIII in 1492. The operation cost the lives of three youths and the Pontiff's life was not saved. Great strides in the research and practice of transfusion on animals were made after Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood in the middle of the 17th century. Physicians in Germany, England and France were especially active in the work of blood transfusion after this discovery. They reasoned that as the blood is the principal medium by which the body is nourished, transfusion, therefore, is a quicker and shorter road to feed an ill-nourished body than eating food which turns to blood after several changes. So transfusion was thought of not only as a cure, but also as a rejuvenator. Attempts were then made to cure various diseases, such as fevers, leprosy, insanity and hydrophobia. Lamb’s blood was used for transfusions into human beings with varying success. Curious to relate, the Faculty of Medicine of Paris refused to recognize Harvey’s discovery and also opposed any progress made in the art of transfusion. They persecuted those who were active in the research work of transfusion. It was in the end of the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th century that the most active work in establishing transfusion as a surgical procedure after haemorrhage was done.” Shall we now say that those three youths, whose lives it cost to provide the unsuccessful blood transfusion for Pope Innocent VIII in 1492, fulfilled Jesus’ command: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”? (John 15:13) This must be countered with the question, Is it right to break the strict commandment of God in order to try to provide life for another? Is breaking God’s commandment love of God, even if it is done while trying to preserve one’s own and another person's present life a little longer? (1 John 5:3) Of course, to a pope it means nothing unscriptural to take directly into his system the blood of three youths, especially when the pope claims by the repeating of the words at mass, "Hic est sanguis meus," to transform the wine into the literal blood of Jesus Christ and then claims to drink such literal blood. Blood is blood to a pope, be it that of Jesus Christ or of other human creatures. When the medical men used lamb's blood for transfusions into human blood streams, they disregarded God’s law to Moses forbidding the mixing of the blood of different species of animal life, namely: “Keep these rules of mine: Never let any of your cattle breed with a different kind; never sow two kinds of seed in your fields; never don a robe made of two different kinds of cloth. You shall not eat any meat with the blood in it.” (Leviticus 19:19, 26, Moffatt) When they poured the shed blood of the lambs, not onto the ground, but into human blood-vessels, they further despised the import of the same Mosaic law: "If anyone belonging to Israel or any alien who has settled among them captures by hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out, covering it with dust; for the soul of every creature is bound up with its blood. Hence my order for Israel is, that you must never taste the blood of any creature, for the soul of every creature lies in its blood; anyone who tastes it shall be outlawed.”—Leviticus 17:13, 14, Moffatt. The law of Moses was given after the Israelites left Egypt, and so when the ancient Egyptians practiced blood transfusion, were they altogether excusable? No; for the law of God which bears upon the subject was given before ever Mizraim was born to Noah’s son Ham and became the father of the Egyptians. When Noah, Ham and the other six emerged from the ark after the flood, Jehovah God established an everlasting covenant with them that extends to all their descendants to this day, and that covenant insists on the sanctity of human as well as other animal blood. God said to them: “Only, you must never eat flesh with the life (that is, the blood) in it. And I will avenge the shedding of your own lifeblood; I will avenge it on any beast, I will avenge man's life on man, upon his brother-man; whoever sheds human blood, by human hands shall his own blood be shed—for God made man in his own likeness." (Genesis 9:4-6, Moffatt) Of course, the flesh of animal creatures might be eaten to sustain life and without violating the sacredness of the life which is in the blood. Yet, if the blood was eaten or drunk in conjunction with the flesh, then the one partaking of the blood was judged by God to be guilty of wanton slaying of the life of such creatures and was a breaker of the covenant. God's regulation clearly showed that one's partaking of the blood was not necessary to sustain human life and that it was not in the same classification as the partaking of flesh as food. It cannot be said that such regulation applies to the blood of animals lower than man but not to human blood. If the blood of lower animals was considered so precious, it representing life from the Creator, then certainly the blood of the higher creature, man, was to be rated as not less precious. For that reason, if an animal killed a man, the blood of such human life taken was required of the killer beast; it must be killed. This decree therefore brands as criminal the heathen practice according to which bloodthirsty warriors, after killing a mighty man of their enemies, would drink his blood in the belief that by absorbing such blood they would at the same time appropriate the mighty qualities of the slain one. Among the barbarous and fierce, savage nations of old, such as the Scythians, Tartars, desert Arabs, Scandinavians, etc., who lived mostly on animal blood, there were some even who drank the blood of their foes after making cups of their skulls. The everlasting covenant as to the sanctity of creature blood carries beyond the abolition of the Mosaic law covenant. Years after Jesus’ death His disciples had a conference concerning Gentile Christians. Then the disciple James said: “My sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Then that conference of apostles and elder disciples framed a letter. Besides telling the Gentiles they were not under the Mosaic law covenant, they inserted this: “For it seemed good to the holy spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled [not drained of their blood at slaughter], and from fornication.” (Acts 15:6-29) That the Christians stuck to that decision for years afterward is evident from the account at Acts 21:25. Christians to this day are letting that decision influence them in their decisions respecting medical blood transfusions. They do not view such transfusions as acceptable sacrifices made supposedly for the lives of others, but remember King David's words in his prophecy of Christ: “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer.”—Psalm 16:4.

You say that “at a blood transfusion the person receiving the blood is in great need of it; the transfusion is not undertaken because he is greedy for it”. How can you say this? For when a doctor tells a patient that he must have a blood transfusion or else he cannot get well and live, what does the doctor create in the patient but a greed for the blood of another human creature?

Too Many Blood Transfusions ● A doctors’ journal questioned today the need for so many blood transfusions in British hospitals. “If things continue at this rate,” the Medical Press warned, “it would seem as if a time must soon come when one fraction of the population will be living on the blood of the remainder.” The journal said the amount of blood transfused in hospital cases in this country has more than doubled in the last five years.—Associated Press dispatch in Washington, D.C., Evening Star, December 19, 1951.

Transferring blood from the veins or arteries of one person to another. As in intravenous feeding, it is a feeding upon blood. An unscriptural practice.

One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States. We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge.

No person in his right mind wants to die. Life is precious, so man wants to live. But cannibalizing human organs is not the answer to longevity. The answer can come only in Jehovah God's new order after the end of this system of things. As God's inspired Word guarantees at Revelation 21:4: "He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be any more.

The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.

Jehovah’s Witnesses view organ transplant operations as a matter of individual conscience.

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.'

The above material shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.’

While those verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusions of whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma.

While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, no Biblical command pointedly forbids the taking in of tissue or bone. Therefore, whether to accept an organ transplant or make an organ donation is a personal medical decision.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood, nor do we donate blood that would be used as a whole blood transfusion to another person.