A friend of mine lost his 20 some year old cousin about 5 yrs ago because she refused a transfusion after traumatic childbirth. She refused because she was a Jehova's Witness. The family are devastated. She was an only daughter and lost the baby too.
2006-07-27 15:29:04 · 8 answers · asked by happydawg 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Frankly, medical technology has advanced to the point where blood products are no longer medically necessary. However, Jehovah's Witnesses are not guided by medical opinion, but by their respect for the Almighty.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.
Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)
Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.
"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)
By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.
"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)
Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?
"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)
"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)
"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29
Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.
An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm
2006-07-28 04:50:49 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
From Wikipedia--it's in the Bible: Whole blood transfusions are rejected. This is based on their understanding of the biblical admonition to "keep abstaining from blood" based on Acts 15:28, 29 (NWT). According to the conscience of the particular individual, they may accept derivatives of blood. In current medical practice, whole blood transfusions are very rare, and blood derivatives are used instead. Witnesses may accept a process called normovolemic hemodilution, a treatment that processes the individual's own blood in a closed loop that does not interrupt the circulation of blood, and delivers it immediately back into the person's body. Also left to conscience are procedures where a "quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient." Many members carry carefully prepared durable power of attorney documentation outlining their medical wishes with respect to blood.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have been known to highlight the potential dangers of blood transfusions. Witness representatives have stated that plasma volume expanders are often sufficient to take care of various medical emergency situations.
2006-07-27 22:33:23 · answer #2 · answered by Samantha H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first reason why they refuse blood it is to obey to a law that god give them in is bible. For god blood is something realy important he represent life. In the bible in actes 15:28,29 he said that human have to refuse blood transfusion. And by refusing any blood transfusions they get protect from a lot of health problems. But blood was not the only way to save a life. They are many other treatment that the doctors can used to remplace blood.
sorry for my english i try my best!
2006-07-27 23:02:23 · answer #3 · answered by Saturne78 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They believe:
Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29
And here is the link to their Official Website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm
2006-07-27 22:35:23 · answer #4 · answered by leathersammie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh gee, once again another testimony of people being the cause for the death of another human being supposedly because of God. It's really sad. The only "god" that told people not to get medical care like a blood transfusion was the "god" of this world about whom Jesus had this say about him and his followers.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
2 Corinthians 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
You know that JW's teach that Jesus is really the arch angel Michael as well don't you?
2006-07-27 22:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
AN INVITING OPTION
“A growing number of hospitals are offering an alternative: 'bloodless' surgery,” reported THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. “Originally developed to accommodate Jehovah's Witnesses,” stated the journal, “the practice has gone mainstream, with many hospitals promoting their bloodless-surgery programs to the general public.” Hospitals around the word are discovering numerous benefits, particularly to patients, when implementing strategies that curtail the use of blood transfusions. Currently, thousands of doctors are treating patients without resorting to transfusions.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and HEALTH
Jehovah's Witnesses, some of whom are physicians and nurses, are known worldwide for their rejection of transfusions involving whole blood or primary blood components. Does their united stand against this practice stem from a man-made doctrine or a belief that a person's faith can heal medical ailments? That is far from the truth.
Cherishing their life as a gift from God, the Witnesses strive to do their best to live according to the Bible, which they believe is “inspired of God.” That book encourages worshippers of God to avoid practices and habits that harm health or endanger life, such as overeating, smoking or chewing tobacco, abusing alcohol, and using drugs for recreational purposes. (Prov. 23:20; 2 Cor. 7:1)
By keeping our body and surroundings clean and getting some physical exercise for health reasons, we are acting in harmony with Bible principles. When Jehovah's Witnesses get sick, they demonstrate reasonableness by seeking medical care and accepting the vast majority of available treatment options. True, they obey the Bible command to “keep abstaining from ... blood,” insisting on nonblood medical management . (Acts 15:29) And this choice often results in a higher quality of treatment.
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 highest quality of medical care--is that not what you would want?
2006-07-28 01:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by BJ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They choose whether or not they want to.
all belief is tied to choice, and it is choice that decides what they do and what they won't do.
2006-07-27 22:33:25 · answer #7 · answered by Trash Can Man 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because it will thin out the L.S.D in their bloodstream
2006-07-27 22:43:39 · answer #8 · answered by jondoe 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋