Brazil and blood

[MJ1]

a favourable ruling

 

https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/brazil/Brazilian-Court-Issues-Nationwide-Order-Requiring-Federal-Hospitals-to-Provide-Non-Blood-Treatment-Options/

[Doug]

If this system were to go on for a few more years,  medicine and science may thank JW's for their tenacious trust in God.

 

I remember a CO from at least 15 years ago say "We will be vindicated on the blood issue".

[MJ1]

not sure where you come from but in the UK there has been a big enquiry into infected blood ....imported blood and not tested  which has caused many many deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infected_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Always find it interesting in the covid years, so many in the medical world refused to take the vaccine based on the principal that they didnt want anything in their body they didnt agree with...erm  ..but like us saying no to blood!

[MJ1]

I was in a vets a couple of years ago and picked up a leaflet offering blood transfusion for a pet. Never heard of it before so wondered if the soc had any information on the subject . They indeed had ....circa 1964!!!

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964127?q=blood+transfusion+for+pets&p=doc

[rocket]

59 minutes ago, MJ1 said:

I was in a vets a couple of years ago and picked up a leaflet offering blood transfusion for a pet. Never heard of it before so wondered if the soc had any information on the subject . They indeed had ....circa 1964!!!

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964127?q=blood+transfusion+for+pets&p=doc

 

While I don't disagree with the 1964 article I find it to be very old but I cannot find nothing newer.  Animals are not under the command not to eat blood and many do so daily.  The problem is not the animal eating the blood but Christians giving it to them. So it would be wrong to throw a live mouse or rat to a cat to eat because of the blood in it but not wrong for a cat to catch a mouse and eat it without human help.

Edited 3 hours ago by rocket

[Doug]

11 minutes ago, rocket said:

 

While I don't disagree with the 1964 article I find it to be very old but I cannot find nothing newer.  Animals are not under the command not to eat blood and many do so daily.  The problem is not the animal eating the blood but Christians giving it to them. So it would be wrong to throw a live mouse or rat to a cat to eat because of the blood in it but not wrong for a cat to catch a mouse and eat it without human help.

 

In my previous congregation a family had a python as a pet.  Weird, but .  .   Anyway, this python is only going to eat a living thing; rat, hamster, guinea pig.

 

Everyone knows about this python, but there seemed to be no problem among the friends with the diet.      

[MJ1]

indeed old, but stiil correct as we have the abilty to reason while animals have no knowledge of Gods Laws. No doubt the animals in the new sytem will not be killing each other. We had c.o in the sixties who had been a vet in the second world war at a UK zoo...because of the shortgage of meat the zoo had to give the big cats a diet of vegitables. The brother said their coats were glossier etc but when the war finished the zoo felt they should go back to a meat diet which they did.

But  the big cats did survive during the war on a vegitable diet

 

[MJ1]

in the sixties/seventies the issue of blood was always an objection in the uk , as we used to say "they brought up blood". Yet in the last 30 years i can think of only one occasion when someone raised the matter of blood. No doubt the infected blood scandal had some affect