Is this true?

Question

I saw a movie on PBS the other night. It was a hospital setting. A Jehovah's Wittness couple gave birth to an RH negative baby, but refused the blood transfusion required to prevent his retardation, suffering, and possible death.

Then, Children's Services came along and took the descision out of the parents' hands and had the transfusion done. The parent's were desolate. They believed that by exchanging the baby's blood, his soul was now doomed for eternity.

I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I don't know much about them, but should the state have the right to interfere with a person's religious convictions? Where does it stop? When should it start?

I don't have an answer....what do you guys think?

Answer 1

i do not think the child's soul is doomed for eternity

however, the state had no right to interfere in the witnesses bible based beliefs

Answer 2

Doctors are not God. They do not know everything and many times they guess and call it fact. Jehovah's Witnesses knew not to commit fornication, homosexuality and take blood transfusions because of the Bible long before anyone knew about the AIDS virus. Doctors are just now beginning to find out that Jehovah's Witnesses know what they are talking about when it comes to lots of things--including blood. It is not because they are sooooo smart--it is because God sees everything and he has warned us all through the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses listen to him and obey. I do think that you misunderstood some of the show or that it was misinterpreted, though. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in an eternal soul that lives on after you die. The Bible teaches that the soul is us or the life that we have so when the person dies, the soul dies, because the person is the soul or has the life (also called soul in the Bible). They also do not believe in eternal torment. That is a church teaching and not based on the Bible but someone's misinterpretation of certain scriptures. These parents, unless they were very new to Jehovah's organization, would also have known that Jehovah would not hold either them or their child accountable for the situation which was taken totally out of their hands. Jehovah is a loving, just God.

Answer 3

My understanding is they believe sins are "recorded" in the blood. The baby will then be responsible for the sins of the donor . . . I just don't understand why forgiveness would not cleanse that blood.

Of course, this is an older idea that someone expressed about my step aunt's belief in the JWs. I wish someone of that faith would share more of the line of thought in this area. I do know that JWs can accept some blood products, but most will not accept red blood cells. They came and spoke with us where I work and shared some videos. The videos were well done on alternative treatments to blood transfusions and did not offer any reasoning on their believe about not accepting blood.

It's always an ethical situation when health care professionals have to move against the parent's religious beliefs . . . a truly difficult situation. Did they share more on the show?

Answer 4

I didn't see the movie but I'm a little confused. Upon doing a little research I couldn't find anything that said if a person has RH neg blood they will become retarded. (Not that it couldn't happen)

I found that if a mother is RH neg, and her child is RH pos. The mother could develop serious complication, if some of the child's blood mixed with hers.

Please note that Dr. Charles Huggins in the Boston Globe Magazine reported that blood "must be considered unavoidably non-safe" and "the most dangerous substance we use in medicine."

I can assure you that more people have died from receiving blood transfusions than Jehovah's Witnesses not receiving blood.

As a Jehovah's Witness I feel that governments are confused.

On the one hand they will take a child away from their parents to "save" the child,

A different government agency will take a child away from their parents to "die" in war.

Understand I do not want my children to die which is why I take them to doctors when they are sick.

but note:

If my child or myself die for the country, we are considered heros,

If my child or myself die for God, we are
consider fanatics.

(Please note I did not say Kill for God or Country)

Answer 5

To answer your specific question - No. The state does not have the right to intervene and/or interfere with parents and their children. Even more so in this scenario. What happens to your baby is your business. If it grows up retarded then it does. Faith can heal most everything - medical science still cannot. By allowing CPS to intervene the father comitted a far more heinous error than not allowing a transfusion.

Answer 6

Busted..

If a person decides to obey the LAW of 'ABSTAINING from BLOOD'....Acts 15:19-29, Leviticus 17:10-14.

and decides to use another alternative transfusion, in which his life will be blessed in 2 ways;

1) obedience to God, result in blessings..
2) One will not receive detrimental physical results, of which many times is death, or sicknesses..

God has given the 'human authorities the power to make Laws.'

Over 100 nations now are ruling. Although Satan gives leadership to those whom he wants, the parts of the government in harmony with God's Laws brings much good to mankind.

So, YES the governments can make any laws they want to, the question is where do you stop obeying the nations and start obeying God?

You know the answer.....You start obeying God always, even when the governments don't.

Mankind will stop ruling at this time;

Daniel 2:44 In the days of those kings..the God of heaven WILL set up a Kingdom, it will CRUSH and put an END to all these kingdoms, and it itself will STAND to times indefinite.

But you knew that? Why do you put me to the test?

Answer 7

The State has no right to interfere with parental decision or authority.
However, there are times when the child's rights to life itself would supercede such authority ... That is said, having not seen the actual case, but from this view the state might have been right in this particular instance!

Nevertheless, governments of today worlwide have far too much to say and dictate re a child's learning and upbringing!

It needs to be remembered too, that this case is not akin to forcing an old person to be sustained in life when death would be imminent, because the older person is quite capable of making a valued decision on their life.
Infants and little toddlers know not what they do and cannot make genuine decisions for themselves ... and in this particular case, the infant's future and even life were entirely at the mercy of those in authority over it, as it was entirely defenceless.
Basic right to life comes first.

Answer 8

This is from their offical website

Blood is also sacred in God's eyes. God says that the soul, or life, is in the blood. So it is wrong to eat blood. It is also wrong to eat the meat of an animal that has not been properly bled. If an animal is strangled or dies in a trap, it should not be eaten. If it is speared or shot, it must be bled quickly if it is to be eaten.—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:13, 14; Acts 15:28, 29.

Answer 9

I guess when religious convictions put a life on danger or make anyone suffer, the state does have the right to interfere with them

I think, (I know is not possible) that all religious rituals, traditions, rules that even make someone uncomfortable and don't make any sense should be illegal, like women being covered in black from head to toe ( when is only a veil or a scarf is OK) or women not being able to cook, pray or touch certain things when they're on their period. I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but I think all that and many other primitive rules should be banned

Answer 10

Respect of anyone's Religious convictions should be done even if we do not always agree. In this case the saving of a life according to the State should ( in my personal opinion ) been left up to the parents. Just as in the case of someone who is terminally ill and has requested the family to pull the plug so they can die. Without life there can be no death and without death there can be no life. each of us know the minute we are born we start to die. The State in this case was in error ( personal opinion ) as this country needs to leave certain decisions to individuals and remember what the foundations of our forefathers were.