Lee Elder, The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on
Blood

Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:37 5-380

Abstract
In their responses to Dr Osamu Muramoto (hereafter Muramoto) Watchtower
Society (hereafter WTS) spokesmen David Malyon and Donald Ridley
(hereafter Malyon and Ridley),^1-3 deny many of the criticisms
levelled against the WTS by Muramoto.^4-6 In this paper
I argue as a Jehovah’s Witness (hereafter JW) and on behalf of the
members of AJWRB that there is no biblical basis for the WTS’s partial
ban on blood and that this dissenting theological view should be
made clear to all JW patients who reject blood on religious grounds.
Such patients should be guaranteed confidentiality should they accept
whole blood or components that are banned by the WTS. I argue against
Malyon’s and Ridley’s claim that WTS policy allows freedom of conscience
to individual JWs and that it is non-coercive and non-punitive in
dealing with conscientious dissent and I challenge the notion that
there is monolithic support of the WTS blood policy among those
who identify themselves as JWs and carry the WTS "advance directive".

(Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:375-380) Keywords: Blood transfusion;
Jehovah’s Witnesses; Watchtower; autonomy

Introduction
In view of the response from WTS representatives Malyon and Ridley
to Muramoto’s articles regarding the medical community’s dilemma
in treating JW patients with blood, I thought it appropriate to
present another viewpoint from within the ranks of J Ws themselves.
A significant number of JW’s have concluded that they cannot support
the WTS’s blood policy. By questioning irrational aspects of this
policy physicians in different countries have helped individual
JWs, JW elders and hospital liaison committee members (hereafter
HLC), to understand the inconsistencies in the WTS’s blood doctrine.

I am a third generation JW, have for most of my life been a loyal
adherent to WTS doctrine, and was a congregation elder for ten years.
My maternal grandmother had her life cut short by her unswerving
loyalty to the WTS’s mandate forbidding JWs from accepting a blood
transfusion. Might she have been persuaded differently if her physician
had discussed with her the facts as suggested by Muramoto? Perhaps.
She was not offered a choice.

As loyal JWs we have little choice but to accept unquestioningly
WTS dictates. To question the organisation and its policies is tantamount
to questioning the authority of Almighty God, and is nearly certain
to result in being called before a tribunal of elders in the congregation
on charges of "apostasy". Unless repentance is expressed
to a degree that satisfies organisational representatives, one is
subject to the harshest sanction of the WTS, that of expulsion (being
"disfellowshiped") from the organisation, with the associated
shunning mandate imposed. According to a 1994 statement, each year
the WTS disfellowships some 40,000 members, or approximately one
per cent of its membership. This means isolation from normal association
or fellowship with family and lifelong friends who are members-not
even being greeted by them if they pass you on the street.⁷
Unless repentance and humility are demonstrated by disfellowshiped
members for months or years, with subsequent "reinstatement",
the penalties permanently remain in force.

Malyon, Ridley and the WTS evade the critical issues
With great interest many of us read Malyons and Ridley’s responses
to Muramoto, for it is inconceivable that these articles were published
without approval from the highest echelons of authority in the WTS.
Previously, members of AJWRB sought clarification from the WTS on
the issues Muramoto raised, with no replies besides verbal advisement
not to pursue the matter. If we expected answers or rational explanations
for the glaring contradictions in the WTS’s blood doctrine, we were
in for another disappointment.

Perhaps it should have been no surprise that Malyon and Ridley upheld
the WTS’s position and skirted the controversial issues. Still we
feel compelled to ask: "Where are the answers to the serious
questions Muramoto raised?"

Foremost among these would be:
The Bible verses against "taking in blood" refer to eating
or drinking it. What scripture extends this to blood transfusion?

If the scriptures ban blood transfusion whv does the WTS allow transfusion/injection
of all blood fractions while banning transfusion of whole blood?

Why does the WTS permit JWs to accept all the separate components
of plasma, yet forbid plasma itself?

Why are components such as platelets (0.17% of blood volume) and
white cells (1% of blood volume) forbidden whereas a larger component
like albumin (2.2%) is allowed?

What sort of ethics allows JWs to accept numerous WTS-permitted
blood products and benefit from the donated blood of non-JWs, yet
not allow them to contribute to the blood supply?

Since permitted haemophiliac treatments require collection and storage
of massive quantities of blood (up to 2,500 units for a single treatment),
why does the WTS forbid JWs from storing their own blood? Why the
double standard?

Why did the WTS’s application to the European Commission on Human
Rights (here after ECHR) state that there are "no controls
or sanctions" against a JW who accepts blood (or non-approved
blood components) when every JW knows otherwise?

Malyon defends policy changes
The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform o nBlood has documented
many modifications to the WTS’s blood policy. ¹⁰ Life
and death decisions were made based on these policies, and compliance
was generally mandatory. Malyon defends these changes by asking:
"Since when has changing one’s mind been a vice?" His
misleading implication is that JWs as a group changed their mind
on the use of blood, blood components, organ transplants and vaccines.
In truth, only the WTS governing body is allowed such intellectual
freedom. Rank and file JWs must submit to current WTS policies or
face a "judicial committee" and be disfellowshiped-a procedure
that Malyon defends by comparing it to a doctor having his licence
suspended by the General Medical Council (GMC).

However, would the GMC attempt to prevent the doctor’s friends and
family from speaking to him? Would they suspend the licences of
other physicians because they continued to speak with a doctor whose
licence was suspended? Is this not a false analogy?

Furthermore, the WTS judicial process is not an "examination
by peers" as Malyon claims. There is no complete transcript
of the proceeding upon which an appeal could be based, no right
to representation, no rules of evidence, etc. It is a "Star
Chamber" affair with inadequate checks and balances. Malyon
attempts to defend vacillating WTS medical policy by comparing it
with that of other organisations, such as the British Medical Association
(BMA), that may have changed their views on issues such as vaccination.
However,unlike the WTS, the BMA bases its decisions on sound scientific
discovery and does not enforce compliance with its medical advice
through extreme disciplinary measures that assume exclusive divine
authority from Almighty God.

I doubt that Malyon or Ridley could have anticipated the significant
revisions the WTS made to its blood policy as outlined in a "Questions
From Readers" article in the June 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower.⁸
Therein we find what appear to be subtle changes but closer examination
reveals meaningful reforms. The WTS appears to have once again changed
its policy concerning the blood fractions it will permit a JW to
accept. The WTS now stipulates that while the "primary components"
of blood-namely red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma-are
forbidden and fractions of all "primary components" are
now permitted. Though such terms are meaningless to a Christian-the
Bible says nothing about primary or secondary components-the policy
seems to reflect the fact that blood banks commonly separate blood
in this manner for commercial reasons. Perhaps most interesting
is that the article states that "when it comes to fractions
of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful
and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself".⁸

The statement is subtle and some JWs will initially miss its importance.
Nevertheless, it signals an important shift in policy-JWs may now
conscientiously accept any blood product that is a "fraction
extracted from the primary components". Previously, JWs were
permitted to accept fractions of blood plasma only. Does this subtle
change create the potential for JWs to benefit from haemoglobin
based blood substitutes that are under development? It appears to
do just that since haemoglobin is obtained by fractionating red
cells. These developments must be monitored closely since blood
substitutes have the potential dramatically to reduce deaths among
the JW population. I am pleased by this development although I am
concerned about the level of confusion among JWs and the medical
community since the WTS in typical fashion obfuscates its intentions
so as not to provoke controversy among the membership.

The chaos of the WTS blood policy
In October, 1999 AJWRB hosted a booth at the American College of
Emergency Physicians’ conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. There
we had opportunity to take our message directly to physicians and
to hear their thoughts and concerns. A recurring theme in these
exchanges was the confusion among doctors as to which blood therapies
JW’s accept and the ethical dilemma doctors face when presented
with an unconscious exsanguinating JW patient.

One physician related an experience involving an unconscious twentyone-year-old
JW man who needed a blood transfusion. He carried the WTS "advance
directive", and the family insisted that no blood transfusions
be given. At one point the man regained consciousness and stated
he did not want to die. He requested the transfusion, which was
given and the man’s life was saved. What if, however, the patient
had not temporarily regained consciousness? This man, like all JWs,
meets in a small group called a "book study", where an
elder is usually present to see that each member has completed his/her
"advance directive" and had his/ her signature properly
witnessed. Since a measure of coercion and duress may be present
in conjunction with the signing of the "advance directive",
and since some JWs will accept blood under certain circumstances,
we have an ethical dilemma, especially for emergency physicians.
These conditions, coupled with the fact that few physicians, and
even JWs themselves, understand the complexities of the WTS blood
policy, are a recipe for disaster. It is not uncommon for JWs to
reject treatments or blood therapies the WTS permits simply because
they are unaware they may now accept them. The WTS’s blood policy
remains in a state of disorder with no credible answers to the core
issues raised by AJWRB. Furthermore, some JWs, including significant
numbers of elders and HLC members, have concluded they can no longer
conscientiously support WTS policy. Many are frustrated by the WTS’s
failure to provide meaningful answers and are deeply troubled over
the death toll this policy has produced. Malyon paints a picture
of mono-lithic support for the blood policy within the JW community.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Risk/benefits of blood transfusions
Malyon gives considerable attention to defendingthe efficacy of
alternative non-blood therapy. Are HLC members such as Malyon qualified
to assess the medical needs of individual JWs confronted with a
decision between blood or non-blood therapies, or is this the role
of the physician? It is noteworthy that a group of eight HLC members
has issued a treatise advising caution with respect to the use of
non-blood techniques since they have observed tragic results from
such procedures within the JW community.¹¹ As Doyle points
out: "Although much has been made about a medical rethinking
of the risk/benefit properties of blood transfusions as a result
of HIV and AIDS, blood transfusions remain essential to life in
a large number of clinical situations. Patients who refuse a blood
transfusion deemed absolutely medically necessary by a physician
put themselves at risk of dying from severe anaemia. For example
Carson et al studied 125 surgical patients who were Jehovah’s Witnesses
and thus refused blood transfusion. It was found thatover 60% of
patients whose preoperative hemoglobin fell below 6 g/dl died following
the surgery."¹²

Blood transfusions and JW children
Malyon presents a distorted picture of the WTS’ position on JW children
with respect to the blood issue. He states that a "child cannot
be one ofJehovah’s Witnesses" since JWs practise "mentally
competent" baptism. (Baptism is the formal rite forinduction
into JW membership.) In truth, the WTS allows very young children
to be baptised as long as they can correctly answer certain questions.
I was baptised at the age of nine. This is not uncommon, as the
WTS has acknowledged.¹³ Baptised children of this tender
age are expected to understand the complexities of the blood issue
and to support the WTS blood policy if the occasion arises, even
to remove the IV from their arm if necessary to prevent the transfusion.¹⁴
Failure to comply with WTS policy could result in disfellowshiping,
the same as an adult.

Featured on the cover of the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine (an official
WTS publication) are the photos of 26 JW children, with the caption
"Youths Who Put God First." Inside, the magazine proclaims:
"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first.
They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals
and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue".¹⁵
The government of Bulgaria was sufficiently concerned by this situation
to stipulate in its agreement with the WTS that baptised JW minors
may not be issued the WTS "advance directive", which forbids
the use of blood and blood components disallowed by the WTS in the
event of an emergency. ¹⁶ How intent is the WTS on preventing
JW children from receiving a blood transfusion? Notice these comments
directed to JW parents in the September 1992 issue of Our Kingdom
Ministry (a publication not distributed to the public), on pages
3-5: "… have you taken every reasonable step to protect your
young children from a blood transfusion?. … it should be made
clear to all concerned that you, as parents, feel an obligation
to continue to do all that you can to avoid a transfusion. This
is your God-given responsibility. . . . If a court order is issued
despite your best efforts, continue to implore the physician not
to transfuse. . . . So, even after a court order has been issued,
never give up, regardless!" To comply, JW parents have been
known to defy doctors and take desperately ill children out of a
hospital to avoid a court-ordered blood transfusion.¹⁷
Do JWs simply conclude on their own that this is something they
should do? Note the following comments from The Watchtower to Witness
parents: "If a Christian did put forth very strenuous efforts
to avoid a violation of God’s law on blood, authorities might consider
him a lawbreaker or make him liable to prosecution. If punishment
did result, the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake
of righteousness."¹⁸ Nevertheless, Malyon’s comments
may indicate that the WTS position on transfusing children is beginning
to soften. However, it is my belief that as with concessions made
in Bulgaria, the WTS is simply compromising in countries where the
government is assertive about protecting the lives of minor children.
I hope that other governments will take note of what transpired
in Bulgaria and prevent the WTS from issuing "advance directives"
to JW minors.

Malyon, Ridley and the WTS must beviewed with skepticism
As noted by Muramoto, JWs living in the country of Bulgaria appear
to be an exception to the WTS blood policy. In that country, according
to the WTS application to the ECHR and later agreement with Bulgaria,
JWs are free to choose blood therapies "without any control
or sanctions" from the WTS.¹⁹ Unfortunately, most
JWs are unaware the WTS entered into such an agreement, or they
are led to believe it is a misinterpretation propagandised by "apostates"
(former members), or perhaps an error made by the ECHR, since the
WTS proclaims no change in the blood policy. The fact that JWs so
willingly believe this is further testimony to the control the WTS
exerts over most members, which makes them unreceptive to information
that would give them a better understanding of the issues.

The WTS’s official application to the ECHR blatantly misrepresents
its blood policy by stating that there are no controls or sanctions
for a JW who accepts blood. The document can be viewed at the AJWRB
internet web site.⁹ We also possess a press release issued
by the WTS public affairs office wherein the WTS claims that no
policy change has occurred in Bulgaria. ²⁰ We must then
ask which is true, their application to the ECHR and subsequent
agreement with Bulgaria or their press release? Malyon, Ridley and
the WTS attempt to sidestep this issue by stating that they don’t
"arbitrarily apply sanctions", that they do not have an
"automatic disfellowshiping policy", that they want to
offer "pastoral care" and that in these senses "no
controls or sanctions" exist. Such tortured logic is analogous
to stating there is no "sanction" for capital murder,
since neither the verdict nor the sentence is arbitrarily applied
or automatic!

Freedom within the Watchtower Society
Ironically, WTS representatives, if asked, will maintain that JWs
are "free to choose" which blood therapies they may accept.
This is a semantic dodge since JWs are allowed to accept, without
disciplinary action, only certain blood components presently permitted
by the organisation. What these spokesmen mean is that JW’s are
"free to choose" if they are willing to accept the consequences,
including expulsion. By that logic, people are free to disobey laws
of the land if they are willing to pay the penalties for so doing.
I once served with an elder who told me he felt he would have no
choice but to disfellowship someone who took a blood transfusion.
Although that man’s views do not represent that of all JW elders,
I believe the view is common. On June 14, 1998, I granted a radio
interview to Roger Bolton of the BBC, along with Paul Gillies, an
official spokesman for the WTS in London.²¹ During the
programme Mr Gillies was asked the following question by interviewer
Roger Bolton: "Is there any scope for democratic debate among
Jehovah’s Witnesses? I mean, you could argue, you know, you’ve changed
your mind on transplants, couldn’t you change your mind on blood
transfusions? Shouldn’t there be an open debate among members?"

Paul Gillie’s response: "Well, we do encourage open discussion.
In fact, we encourage every family head to discuss with his family
all the various medical procedures and implications of blood with
his family so that, if a medical situation arises, he’s quite clear
in his own mind what various choices he has and what he can do.
In our meetings, too, we have open discussions."

This statement is, again, another example of sidestepping the issue
by the use of misleading words. While it implies that there is a
measure of latitude for families and congregations to discuss openly
the full range of blood therapies and make personal decisions about
which ones they might accept, this obviously is not true. If this
is true, then why does the WTS disfellowship members who speak openly
and sometimes privately against the current policy? In 1999, a JW
man in the USA, Wayne Rogers, was reported by his wife to congregation
elders simply because he sent an e-mail to AJWRB expressing support
of our efforts to promote reform of this WTS doctrine. The man was
promptly disfellowshiped despite his plea for mercy and desire to
remain a JW. Shortly thereafter the elders apparently told the man’s
wife that she was entitled to leave him since remaining with an
apostate posed "absolute spiritual endangerment". This
is the sad reality of WTS "pastoral care", and is not
an isolated incident. So much for Mr Ridley’s assurances of "normal
family affections and dealings". Recently a JW in the UK, Ray
Hemming, was disfellowshiped for simply questioning the WTS blood
policy and Rado Vleugel, a JW regular pioneer (full-time minister)
in the Netherlands, was disfellowshiped after speaking with journalists
about the WTS blood policy. One JW woman who is an AJWRB member
stated it well: "What, then, is free will or freedom of choice?
If a robber holds a gun to my head and tells me to give him my money,
do I have free will when making my decision? I don’t really want
to give him my money, but also Idon’t want to die. Not much of a
free choice, is it?

. . . the WTS holds the same power over JWs…. In the case of accepting
certain blood products, the choice is either to die or be disfellowshiped
for following one’s conscience. Nothing like having a ‘WTS gun’
held to my head. My money is not being stolen, my peace of mind
is."

There is little room for freedom or patient autonomy within the
current WTS system, despite the claims of Malyon, Ridley, and the
WTS.

‘High-control’ authoritarian groups
Malyon not only failed to address the core issues Muramoto raised
and to come to terms with the cognitive dissonance brought on by
serious evaluation of WTS teachings on blood, but dismissed the
views of current and former JWs who disagree with the WTS as coming
from "disaffected ones". In criticising JW dissidents
like myself for presenting our case anonymously, he disregards the
obvious fact that the WTS’s enforced legalism allows no viable alternative,
as already discussed at length. So Malyon has provided an excellent
demonstration of how a rational individual comes to yield to the
authority of a high-control religious group. Ridley dismisses the
existence of mind control among JW s and cites a report which "determined
that theories of coercive manipulation or ‘mind control’ as applied
to religious movements lacked any scientific foundation and should
not be presented as scientific". Muramoto will address Ridley’s
comments in an article to be published in this journal. My observation
is that the existence of group coercion among JWs is real and not
in serious dispute since the WTS aggressively endeavours to control
the emotions, behaviour and thoughts of its members, as well as
the flow of information. In my own case the pressure to conform
led me to continue carrying a WTS advance directive in my wallet
for nearly three years after I no longer accepted the policy.

Why AJWRB members believe the WTS blood policy is wrong
While we acknowledge that the Bible does speak against the misuse
of blood, it is important to note that this is always in the context
of using it as food, as The Watchtower has acknowledged: "Each
time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it
is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient
that we are concerned with its being forbidden". ²²

The primary issue is whether or not a blood transfusion is the equivalent
of eating blood. Clearly, it is not. A blood transfusion is not
a meal but rather a tissue or organ transplant. There is no nutritional
benefit as would be the case if a person were to eat blood and digest
it. The WTS has tried to overcome these facts by likening a blood
transfusion to intravenous feedings.

However, because compounds like dextrose are used by the body as
food without digestion this analogy is wrong. Transfused blood cannot
be used by the body as food any more than a transplanted heart or
kidney can. The following analogy may prove helpful.

Consider two patients who are unable to eat, and are admitted to
a hospital. One is given a blood transfusion and the other intravenous
feedings. Which one is receiving nourishment and will live?

Clearly, doctors do not prescribe blood transfusions to treat malnutrition,
but rather to replace something the patient’s body has lost, usually
the red cells needed to transport oxygen. Since it cannot be established
that blood transfusion is a feeding on blood or the equivalent of
eating blood, the critical link for biblical support of the WTS
bloodpolicy does not exist.

Reasoning with JW patients who are unfamiliar with AJWRB
Before discussing the lack of biblical foundation for the WTS blood
policy, we believe it is helpful first to first encourage the JW
patient actually to think about the contradictions of the WTS blood
policy. We propose using the following questions and statements:

"Could you, as a JW, please explain to me which blood therapies
you can accept, which you cannot, and why the difference?"

"I am especially interested in knowing where the Bible explains
which parts of the blood you may or may not accept."

"Please do not give me a publication that I’m too busy to read,
or ask me to speak with an elder from your congregation. It’s important
that I understand what you are thinking and why you are prepared
to die over this issue if non-blood alternatives are exhausted."

Please note that some JWs are unaware that the WTS permits its members
to accept all blood products produced from fractionating red cells,
white cells, platelets and plasma. This would include, but is not
limited to, the following: albumin, all clotting factors, all immunoglobulins,
fibrinogen, EPO, interferons, interleukins, and other cellular fractions.²³

You are invited to visit the physician’s section of AJWRB web site
where you will find extensive resources to assist you. The address
is: http://www.ajwrb.org. Physicians, medical ethicists, hospital
chaplains and other interested persons may obtain up-to-date information
and helpful brochures from the web site or by writing directly to
AJWRB.

Conclusion
I sincerely hope that physicians will follow Muramoto’s suggestions
to pursue rational noninterventional paternalism. As Muramoto revealed,
they will discover that most JWs are not adequately informed to
make an autonomous decision about blood treatment. Yet, sadly, they
are prepared to sacrifice their own lives or the life of a child
to support an irrational policy that is frequently revised and may
one day be abandoned altogether, as have previous WTS bans on vaccines,
organ transplants and numerous blood components. Until such time,
the best hope for JW’s is that concerned physicians will engage
them in the kinds of discussion suggested by Muramoto.

In this manner, the loss of life can be, and already has been reduced.
It is my belief that heightened public scrutiny may compel the WTS
to reform its blood doctrine so that JWs will have the freedom to
make a conscientious choice without fear of sanctions that would
separate them from their friends and loved ones.

About the author

The author’s interest in the WTS blood doctrine was heightened following
a series of exchanges with a physician over the internet in 1995.
He spent the balance of 1996 researching the history of the policy
before concluding a tragic mistake had been made. After failing
to open a dialogue with Daniel Sydlik, a WTS governing body member,
the author opened the internet website "New Light on Blood".
It quickly became apparent that many JW elders and HLC members had
reached similar conclusions, but had no forum in which to safely
to discuss them. The author is the founder of AJWRB and maintains
his status as a JW which requires anonymity for his internet and
reform activities with AJWRB. Fear of draconian punishment forces
him to write under a pseudonym, but the editor is assured of his
bona fides. His diligence for seeking reform of the WTS blood
doctrine is motivated by his concern for fellow JWs. Lee Elder,
(The Liberal Elder), is Director of The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses
for Reform on Blood (AJWRB).

References and notes

1 Malyon D. Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses: respecting
the autonomous patient’s rights. Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:302-7.

2 Malyon D. Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses: respecting
the autonomous patient’s motives. Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:376-81.

3 Ridley D. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal of blood: obedience to
scripture and religious conscience. Journal of Medical Ethics 1999:25:469-72.

4 Muramoto 0. Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses:
part 1. Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents’ views?
Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:223-30.

5 Muramoto 0. Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses:
part 2. A novel approach based on rational non-interventional paternalism.
Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:295-301.

6 Muramoto 0. Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses:
part 3. A proposal for a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy. Journal of
Medical Ethics 1998;25:463-8.

7 Anonymous. Are you resisting the spirit of the world? The Watchtower
1994 Apr 1:

8 Anonymous. Questions from readers. The Watchtower 2000 Jun15:
29-31.

9 Anonymous. New light on blood. Watchtower commits perjury? AJWRB.
1998. URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/

10 Anonymous. New light on blood. The historical perspective. AJWRB,
1997. URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml

11 Anonymous. New light on blood. The HLC perspective. AJWRB, 1997.
URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/hlc.shtml

12 Doyle J. Risks of avoiding "necessary" blood transfusions.
AJWRB 1998. URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/physicians/doylerisksavoiding.html

13 Anonymous. Trust in Jehovah leads to dedication and baptism.
The Watchtower 1988 March 15: 14.

14 Anonymous. Youths who have "power beyond what is normal".
Awake! 1994 May 22: 13.

15 Anonymous. Table of contents. Awake! 1994 May 22: 2.

16 Report of the European Commission on Human Rights. Application
no 28626195. New light on blood. The Bulgarian Files. AJWRB, 1998
. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/bulgaria/index.shtml

17 Anonymous. New light on blood. Stories that break hearts. AJWRB
1997. URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/experiences/stories.shtml#blizzard

18 Anonymous. Questions From Readers. The Watchtower 1991 Sept 15:
31.

19 The original document is available from: URL: http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INF0.148.html.
Communique issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of
Human Rights. Information note no 148 on the 276th session of the
European Commission of Human Rights. (Strasbourg, Monday 2 Mar-Fri
13 March 1998). The full text of the "friendly settlement"
in French is available from URL:http://194.250.50.2O1/eng/28626.28.html.

20 Anonymous. WTS-Public Affairs Office. See: Watchtower blood policy
in Bulgaria - a crime, an outrage, and a delusion! AJWRB, 1998.
URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abandon.shtml

21 Transcript of interview with the Liberal Elder and Paul Gillies,
spokesman for WTS, by Roger Bolton on Sunday, BBC Radio 4, on June
14, 1998. AJWRB, 1998. The document is available from: URL: http://www.ajwrb.org/newsmedia/bbs.shtml

22 Anonymous. Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1958 Sept 15:
575.

23 Muramoto 0. Recent developments in medical care of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Western Journal of Medicine 1999;170:297-301