Why are Jehovah's witnesses doesnot allow blood transfusion?

Question

Their reasoning are illogical.
1. Citing verses from Bible - considering that eating blood is a sin. Why are they eating meat? Even if you wash meat for hours, brush it, put it in washing machine with detergent, grind it, pound it, there will still be blood in it. you cannot, remove the blood totally 100% on a meat.
2. Blood transfusion is like eating blood since both goes to your veins or nerves. They compare it with drinking alcohol. Drinking alcohol is a sin, if you inject alcohol into your veins, its just like you drink it also.

Im sorry but but I find it absurd

Bobbie joe, I dont think its about health reasons. They are citing verses from Old testament, Aids, Hepa, and other blood resident disease are not existing during that time. Again, that's conflicting reasoning.

If they want the bloodline to be pure. Still, they should allow siblings-siblings, parent-children to have transfusion.

I had not only blood transfusion but a Kidney transplant. My new kidney came from my sister. I dont consider that a sin and I know God will also not. I know a lot of people having second life really turned to God.

Then, will you consider that a sin?

Answer 1

You just answered your own question. You know the reason, but don't understand the logic? I'm right there with ya buddy.

Answer 2

If I am not mistaken, the original reason has to do with keeping the bloodline pure. This goes back to Old Testament days, when blood was clearly an issue as was keeping the bloodline pure, so that Jesus could be traced back through the bloodline of David as was prophesied. However I have heard various reasons given by JW's. The most recent one I heard from a staunch JW at work, had to do more with medicinal reasons. Myself, not being a JW, but a Christian, and someone who has had 3 blood transfusions because of bleeding ulcers, have a very common sense approach, that makes Godly sense: Because you don't want to get what other people may have. As in early AIDS days or in HEP C days, before they screened properly for those diseases. What disease next?

Answer 3

you must understand at the time the mosaic laws were written which speak of meats you can not eat they had no way of properly know if the meat or food was fully cooked it said if you want to avoid the disease of the Egyptians to abstain form these things not that you MUST... but further More if you read the whole scripture surrounding the state about blood acts 15:20 and 15:29 and 21:25 you note it WAs snot god speaking but men giving advice and you make a valid point about blood in eat but that blood is not considered unclean nor should the blood of man the bible says that in blood is life it also says that to give ones own life for your bother is the greatest sacrifice... so wouldn't it be logical then to assume if in blood is life and you ave your blood basically your life to them you have given the greatest gift? but how you read it and how i read it may differ... never let anyone tell you how to read the bible read it for yourself and make your own choice.. it is between you and god and no one else Jesus said what you hold true on earth i will hold true in heaven... if god doesn't want you to live do you think a mere science trick will prevent him? just my opinion :-)

Answer 4

This is not our reason for not taking Blood Transfusions, but it is a good enough reason for anyone to think about.

A “Circular of Information” prepared by three U.S. blood agencies states on its first page: “WARNING: Because whole blood and blood components are made from human blood, they may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents, eg, viruses....Careful donor selection and available laboratory tests do not eliminate the hazard.”

Regarding a Canadian study, the Glove and Mail newspaper reported that thousands of blood transfusions involved near-misses be cause of “collecting blood samples from the wrong patient, mislabelling samples and requesting blood for the wrong patient.” Such mistakes cost the lives of at least 441 people in the United States between 1995 and 2001.

No wonder Brian McClelland, director Edinburgh and Scotland Blood Transfusion Service, asks doctors to “remember that a transfusion is a transpland and therefore not a trivial decision.” He suggests that doctors ponder the question,”IF THIS WAS MYSELF OR MY CHILD, WOULD I AGREE TO THE TRANSFUSION?” More than a few health-care workers express themselves as did/one hematologist, “We transfusion-medicine specialists do not like to get or to give blood.” If this is the feeling among some well-trained individuals in the medical community, how should patients feel.?

Many doctors, would agree with medical director Dr. Michael Rose, who says: “Any patient who receives bloodless medicine is, in essence, the recipient of the highest quality surgery that is possible.” The hishest quality of medical care--is that not what you would want?



Death by 'TRALI'

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), first reported in the early 1990's, is a life-threatening immune reaction following a blood transfusion. It is now known that TRALI causes hundreds of deaths each year. Experts, however, suspect that the numbers are much higher, as many health-care workers do not recognize the symptoms. Although it is not clear what caused the reaction, according to the magazine “New Scientist”, the blood that caused it “appears to come primarily from people who have been exposed to a variety of blood groups in the past, such as ... people who have had multiple transfusions.” One report states that TRALI is now near the top of the list for caused of transfusion-related deaths in the United States and Britain, making it “a bigger problem for blood banks than high-profile diseases like HIV.”

Answer 5

Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ - Acts 15:20, Genesis 9:3, 4; 19:1-25; 34:31; 35:2-4.

The firm position that Jehovah’s Witnesses take is that persons who recognize their dependence on the Creator and Life-Giver should be determined to obey his commands. It is out of obedience to the highest authority in the universe, the Creator of life that they refuse to take blood into their systems either by eating or by transfusion.

Does this put God’s servants at a disadvantage in comparison with persons who ignore the Bible and take blood transfusions? No, it works no real hardship on them. Immediately after telling Christians to ‘keep themselves from blood,’ the Scripture says: “If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:29) The fact is that, while most patients survive blood transfusions, many become diseased as a result of them and thousands die every year as a direct result of them. There are other forms of treatment that do not cause such harm.

Jehovah’s Witnesses want to stay alive; that’s why they seek medical help. Although they cannot and will not violate their deep-seated and Bible-based religious convictions, they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. According to Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital, “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment. As a group, they are the best educated consumers the surgeon will ever encounter.”

The information on bloodless medicine and surgery that has been compiled by Jehovah’s Witnesses has been of benefit to many in the medical field. Doctors have perfected many bloodless surgery techniques on Jehovah’s Witnesses, with results that clearly demonstrate that cardiac operations can be successfully performed without the use of blood. A guide published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland calls the Witnesses’ position “a sign of respect for life.” In truth, the Witnesses’ rigorous stand has been a major force behind safer medical treatment becoming available for all. “Jehovah’s Witnesses in need of surgery have shown the way and exerted pressure for improvements in an important sector of the Norwegian health service,” wrote Professor Stein A. Evensen, of Norway’s National Hospital.

To assist doctors in providing treatment without the use of blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed a helpful liaison service. Presently, more than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery. Dr. Charles Baron, a professor at Boston College Law School noted, “Not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses’ Hospital Liaison Committees”

Answer 6

Well first of all here are some Scriptures you can look up,Ge 9:4,16
'Noah was told that the blood was sacred,was the way life.
Law covenant prohibited feeding on the blood LE 17:14, and17:26,27 prohibited repeated to Christians.Acts,15:28,29 and 21:25

Answer 7

first answer is, blood transfusion are not allowed because of the commandment on acts 15;28,29.
the second answer is on gen.9;3,4, where it tells you that you're allowed to eat meat but the fluid blood
it is not absurd; unless you WANT to see it your way.

Answer 8

Ummm blood cooks out of meat... didn't you ever wonder what the red stuff was leaking out your hamburger??
And drinking wine is not a sin lol.

Answer 9

The issue is not new,it was over 4,300 years ago,when Noah and his household,came out of the ark,that God stated to them his law on blood.Before this man had eaten only vegatation and fruit,but now,for the first time,Jehovah granted permission for man to add meat to his diet,saying"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.As in the case of green vegetation,I give it all to you.Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat."(Gen9:3,4).The law is clear.Meat can be eaten,but not with the blood still in it,because the blood represents the soul or life of the creature.Man must show respect for the sanctity of blood
and,so doing,show his respect for the Life-giver,Jehovah God.
Some eight centuries later,when the Israelites,who had recently been spared from annihilation in Egypt,were gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai,Jehovah again,emphasized the restriction on blood.(Lev.3:17).
It was not even to be stored,as shown when God went on to say,"As for any man....who is hunting and catches a wild beast or fowl.....he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it."(Lev.17:13,14).
The reason was clearly stated.The soul or the life of the flesh is in the blood,and obedience to God's law would show proper regard for the sanctity of life and for the Source of Life.
Of course,Christians are not under the law covenant made with Moses as mediator.But does that mean that the restrictions on the use of blood have passed away too?Not at all.The christian governing body at Jerusalem directed their attention to the obligations that devolved upon them in this matter,saying"The Holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you,except these necessary things,to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols,and from blood,and from things strangled (because the blood would not have been drained out)and from fornication..."(Acts15:28,29).
Butchers today,properly bleed animals to be served as food.God is not unreasonable.He does not expect you to put your steak in the washing machine first.He only asks that the blood is drained from the meat we eat.Of course, you cannot drain every minute drop.That is not the point.We are expected to respect blood as sacred and not just a commodity because who we are is in the blood and Jehovah views it as sacred,because blood is life.
So then,is it wrong to sustain life by infusions of blood,or plasma or red cells or the various blood fractions?Yes!The law that God gave to Noah and all his descendants makes it wrong for anyone to eat blood,that is,to use the blood of another creature to nourish or sustain one's life.
There are many simple alternative treatments avaiable that can be used instead of blood.For example saline solution,Ringers's solution,and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders,and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals.Actually the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances.
I need to correct you when you say that Jehovahs Witnesses are not 'allowed' blood transfusions.Jehovahs people are 'allowed' to do whatever they choose.If their conscience allows them to have a transfusion,they will have one.
Secondly,the bible does not say that alcohol is a sin.Jesus himself,turned water into wine.The Bible admonishes against drunkedness,excessive drinking.
And lastly,when someone compared a transfusion with alcohol,I believe what they did in fact say was that there are people who argue that a transfusion is not the same as 'eating' blood.So a transfusion should be acceptable.That is likened to an alcoholic who should not drink alcohol.So if he injects alcohol into his vein,is that alright - because he's not drinking it,is he?

Listen,what it boils down to is,Jehovah God views blood as sacred.It is not to be stored,but poured out onto the ground from which we came,it is not be used as a commodity, being bought and sold(as in the case of transfusions).It is not to be taken from one living soul and put into another living soul.
Jehovah is our Creator and as such has the right to govern our lives and direct us in the way in which we should walk.(Isa.48:17).You may find it absurd until you study God's Word and learn the truth about our Heavenly Father and his wonderful promises for obedient mankind

Answer 10

First, the apostle Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 10:25- "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience"
What would that mean in practice? The expression “things strangled” designates the flesh of animals that were killed in a manner that left their blood in the meat. Christians could not eat such flesh. How about the phrase ‘abstain from blood’? This would prohibit the using of blood drained from such a creature, as in the case of some pagans, who made and ate blood sausage or other blood-containing foods or who drank blood that came from animals or warriors killed in the arena. Christians would not do any of these things. When they drained blood from a creature, they would do what God’s servants in the past had done, abstain from it. They could thus underscore their appreciation for the sacredness of blood and life and also demonstrate their dependence on the merit of Christ’s blood.

It would have to be different, however, if those Christians knew that meat from strangled animals (or blood sausage) was one of the choices at local shops. They would need to exercise care in choosing what meat to buy. They might be able to recognize the meat products that contained blood if such had a distinctive color (even as today blood sausage can usually be recognized in lands where it is common). Or Christians might inquire of a reputable butcher or meat merchant. If they had no reason to believe that certain meat contained blood, they could simply buy and eat.

Paul also wrote: “Let your reasonableness become known to all men.” (Philippians 4:5) That could apply to the matter of buying meat. Neither Israel’s Law nor the decree of the first-century Christian governing body indicated that God’s people had to go to great lengths in inquiring about meat, even becoming vegetarians if there was the slightest doubt about blood being in available meat.

An Israelite hunter who killed an animal would drain its blood. (Compare Deuteronomy 12:15, 16.) If his family could not eat all the meat, he might sell some. Even in a properly bled carcass, a small amount of blood would remain in the meat, but nothing in the Bible suggests that a Jew buying meat needed to go to extremes in getting such facts as the number of minutes between killing and draining, which artery or vein was cut to let the blood flow, and how the animal was hung up and for how long. Furthermore, the governing body did not write that Christians had to take extraordinary precautions in this regard, as if they needed ultimate answers before eating any meat.

In many lands today, the law, custom, or religious practice is such that meat products (except for unusual items, such as blood sausage) are from animals that must be drained of blood when slaughtered. Thus, Christians in those areas normally need not be preoccupied with slaughtering or processing methods. In an extended sense, they may simply ‘keep eating commercial meat, making no inquiry,’ and they can have a clear conscience that they are abstaining from blood.

Secondly, as was mentioned by another, drinking alcohol is not a sin. Over-indulging, or getting drunk is. Also, there is more involved than merely upholding the sanctity of blood.
Several medical conferences have highlighted the increased interest in bloodless surgery.
After over 50 years of reliance on blood transfusions, why did more than 1,400 professionals from 12 countries attend these four conferences heralding bloodless surgery as “the way of the future,” as one newspaper headline expressed it? What did these conferences highlight regarding new drugs, equipment, and techniques that can affect treatment available to your family?

Why the Search for Alternatives?

A prime motivation is the inability to safeguard blood supplies. For example, Toronto’s Globe and Mail, of January 31, 1998, comments on Canada’s “tainted-blood tragedy” of the 1980’s: “Hepatitis C is a potentially debilitating liver disease for which there is no cure. . . . As many as 60,000 Canadians may have been infected with the virus through tainted blood, which means as many as 12,000 could die as a result of blood-borne hepatitis.”

Although newer screening procedures have greatly lessened the threat, Justice Horace Krever said to the conference held in Winnipeg: “Canada’s blood supply never was absolutely safe, and never can be. The use of blood inevitably entails risks.” And the risks of transmitting disease or causing severe reaction increase with each additional unit of blood given.

In Riga, Dr. Jean-Marc Debue, of the Clinique des Maussins, in Paris, concluded: “We physicians had to reconsider our usual therapeutic approach. . . . Blood transfusion has extended the lives of many patients, but it has also poisoned the lives of others by giving them an incurable disease.”

Procedures for screening blood for contaminants tend to lag behind new threats of disease and thus may not protect against them. For example, Dr. Paul Gully, of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, observed: “Hepatitis G is a newly described RNA virus; transmission through transfusion has occurred but the current risk is unknown.”

An additional danger was reported in a special medical issue of Time magazine: “Transfusions can suppress the immune system, . . . leaving a patient open to infection, slower healing and a longer recovery time.”

Another factor is financial savings. In the United States, according to Time magazine, each blood transfusion can cost $500. And in some places, the blood supply is dwindling because there are fewer donors.

Further savings to patients who have bloodless surgery result from lower infection rates and shorter hospital stays. Speaking in Winnipeg, Durhane Wong-Rieger, of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, said about bloodless surgery: “We feel it is essential. It’s cost-effective and would definitely improve the health of patients.”

There is also an increased demand for bloodless surgery by a wider constituency of patients. Dr. David Rosencrantz, of Legacy Portland Hospitals (Oregon, U.S.A.), stated that initially “100% of those who came to us did so on religious grounds.” However, now at least 15 percent prefer medical alternatives to blood transfusions, but not because of religious conscience.