Jehovah's witness and blood transfusions?

Question

I have a family member who became a witness. his daughter was to have an operation, but the surgeons hands were tied due to their believe of no transfusions

Answer 1

Read leviticus in the bible, you'll find it.

Answer 2

Tech there hands are not tied, If in the middle of an operation something goes wrong and they parent says they do not want a blood transfusion they as doctors can over ride her dission and give the child one.

Blood tranfustion are not always needed when someone has an operation.

Answer 3

Side point, There are more people who have died from receiving tantied blood transfusions, than have died from not receiving blood transfusion, but you will not read about them.

Life and death are so complicated that no doctor can honestly say, if you do or don't receive a blood transfusion, you will or will not die.

What about the countless number who have received blood and still died? Blood isn't this miracle medicine people think it is.

Having said all this, the real reason Jehovah's people don't take blood is from the lessons we've learned from the bible.

Answer 4

Yes well i myself dont agree with it,but many opperation are carried out today,without the need for a transfussion,i just had major stomach surgery and no transfussion was required and when you think of all the aids around today,theres still a chance you can get infected blood,allso they are having trouble geting enough donars today,so maybe its not such a bad idea,i just dont agree someone schould be left to die when a transfusion could have saved them,to me thats the same as murder,besides jehovah;s do not live christian lives,as the bible says love one and other as i have loved you,it dose not say love only Jehovahs yet i have witnessed then break up families just because one member is a non beliver in there ways,this to me is very unchristian,

Answer 5

UNDER the heading “‘Bloodless’ Surgery,” Maclean’s magazine reported that doctors across Canada have been “developing new techniques that, over the past five years, have turned so-called bloodless surgery into a major medical trend.” Brian Muirhead, an anesthesiologist at Winnipeg’s Health Sciences Centre, is one of them. What prompted his search for alternative nonblood management?

In 1986, Dr. Muirhead took on the challenge of operating on a 70-year-old man with a bleeding ulcer who, because of his Bible-based beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, had asked for treatment that did not require a blood transfusion. (Acts 15:28, 29) Dr. Muirhead “resorted to a little-used method of pumping saline solution into the patient to keep his blood pressure up,” reports Maclean’s. “The procedure was a success, and it reinforced Muirhead’s growing belief that ‘we were giving too many blood transfusions. I thought it was time to look at alternatives.’”

The quest for bloodless surgery was “spurred both by concerns over the future supply of donated blood—and by many patients’ fears of getting a disease virus from a transfusion.” Thanks to the research by innovative doctors, not only Jehovah’s Witnesses but many others have benefited. “Besides eliminating the need for transfusions in many cases, bloodless surgery reduces the risk—however slight—of infection from tainted blood,” says Maclean’s. But even “clean” blood can pose a risk of infection by temporarily suppressing patients’ immune systems.

What is behind the firm belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning alternative nonblood management? You may be interested in reading the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? Ask your relative for it.

Answer 6

This is a part of the Jehovah's witness beliefs, read about it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood

That's a sticky situation. I hope everything works out for the best

Answer 7

At this time, medical technology has advanced to the point where there is literally no medical condition that requires a blood transfusion. Even if an inexperienced or lazy physician insisted that was untrue, the opinion of Almighty God is more important to Jehovah's Witnesses.


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

Answer 8

BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?
by J. Lowell Dixon, M.D.




PHYSICIANS are committed to applying their knowledge, skills, and experience in fighting disease and death. Yet, what if a patient refuses a recommended treatment? This will likely occur if the patient is a Jehovah's Witness and the treatment is whole blood, packed red blood cells, plasma, or platelets.

When it comes to the use of blood, a physician may feel that a patient's choice of nonblood treatment will tie the hands of dedicated medical personnel. Still, one must not forget that patients other than Jehovah's Witnesses often choose not to follow their doctor's recommendations. According to Appelbaum and Roth,1 19% of patients at teaching hospitals refused at least one treatment or procedure, even though 15% of such refusals "were potentially life endangering."

The general view that "the doctor knows best" causes most patients to defer to their doctor's skill and knowledge. But how subtly dangerous it would be for a physician to proceed as if this phrase were a scientific fact and to treat patients accordingly. True, our medical training, licensing, and experience give us noteworthy privileges in the medical arena. Our patients, though, have rights. And, as we are likely aware, the law (even the Constitution) gives greater weight to rights.

On the walls of most hospitals, one sees displayed the "Patient's Bill of Rights." One of these rights is informed consent, which might more accurately be called informed choice. After the patient is informed of the potential results of various treatments (or of nontreatment), it is his choice what he will submit to. At Albert Einstein Hospital in the Bronx, New York, a draft policy on blood transfusion and Jehovah's Witnesses stated: "Any adult patient who is not incapacitated has the right to refuse treatment no matter how detrimental such a refusal may be to his health."2

While physicians may voice concerns about ethics or liability, courts have stressed the supremacy of patient choice.3 The New York Court of Appeals stated that "the patient's right to determine the course of his own treatment [is] paramount . . . [A] doctor cannot be held to have violated his legal or professional responsibilities when he honors the right of a competent adult patient to decline medical treatment."4 That court has also observed that "the ethical integrity of the medical profession, while important, cannot outweigh the fundamental individual rights here asserted. It is the needs and desires of the individual, not the requirements of the institution, that are paramount."5

When a Witness refuses blood, physicians may feel pangs of conscience at the prospect of doing what seems to be less than the maximum. What the Witness is asking conscientious doctors to do, though, is to provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances. We often must alter our therapy to accommodate circumstances, such as hypertension, severe allergy to antibiotics, or the unavailability of certain costly equipment. With the Witness patient, physicians are being asked to manage the medical or surgical problem in harmony with the patient's choice and conscience, his moral/religious decision to abstain from blood.

Numerous reports of major surgery on Witness patients show that many physicians can, in good conscience and with success, accommodate the request not to employ blood. For example, in 1981, Cooley reviewed 1,026 cardiovascular operations, 22% on minors. He determined "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others."6 Kambouris7 reported on major operations on Witnesses, some of whom had been "denied urgently needed surgical treatment because of their refusal to accept blood." He said: "All patients received pretreatment assurances that their religious beliefs would be respected, regardless of the circumstances in the operating room. There were no untoward effects of this policy."

When a patient is a Jehovah's Witness, beyond the matter of choice, conscience comes into the picture. One cannot think only of the physician's conscience. What of the patient's? Jehovah's Witnesses view life as God's gift represented by blood. They believe the Bible's command that Christians must "abstain from blood" (Acts 15:28, 29).8 Hence, if a physician paternalistically violated such patients' deep and long-held religious convictions, the result could be tragic. Pope John Paul II has observed that forcing someone to violate his conscience "is the most painful blow inflicted to human dignity. In a certain sense, it is worse than inflicting physical death, or killing."9

While Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood for religious reasons, more and more non-Witness patients are choosing to avoid blood because of risks such as AIDS, non-A non-B hepatitis, and immunologic reactions. We may present to them our views as to whether such risks seem minor compared to the benefits. But, as the American Medical Association points out, the patient is "the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it. Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes."10

Related to this, Macklin11 brought up the risk/benefit issue regarding a Witness "who risked bleeding to death without a transfusion." A medical student said: "His thought processes were intact. What do you do when religious beliefs are against the only source of treatment?" Macklin reasoned: "We may believe very strongly this man is making a mistake. But Jehovah's Witnesses believe that to be transfused . . . [may] result in eternal damnation. We are trained to do risk-benefit analyses in medicine but if you weigh eternal damnation against remaining life on earth, the analysis assumes a different angle."11

Vercillo and Duprey12 in this issue of the Journal refer to In re Osborne to highlight the interest in ensuring the security of dependents, but how was that case resolved? It concerned a severely injured father of two minor children. The court determined that if he died, relatives would materially and spiritually care for his children. So, as in other recent cases,13 the court found no compelling state interest to justify overriding the patient's choice of treatment; judicial intervention to authorize treatment deeply objectionable to him was unwarranted.14 With alternative treatment the patient recovered and continued to care for his family.

Is it not true that the vast majority of cases physicians have confronted, or likely will, can be managed without blood? What we studied and know best has to do with medical problems, yet patients are human beings whose individual values and goals cannot be ignored. They know best about their own priorities, their own morals and conscience, which give life meaning for them.

Respecting the religious consciences of Witness patients may challenge our skills. But as we meet this challenge, we underscore valuable liberties that all of us cherish. As John Stuart Mill aptly wrote: "No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government . . . Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."15

1. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH: Patients who refuse treatment in medical hospitals. JAMA 1983; 250:1296-1301.

2. Macklin R: The inner workings of an ethics committee: Latest battle over Jehovah's Witnesses. Hastings Cent Rep 1988; 18(1):15-20.

3. Bouvia v Superior Court, 179 Cal App 3d 1127, 225 Cal Rptr 297 (1986); In re Brown, 478 So 2d 1033 (Miss 1985).

4. In re Storar, 438 NYS 2d 266, 273, 420 NE 2d 64, 71 (NY 1981).

5. Rivers v Katz, 504 NYS 2d 74, 80 n 6, 495 NE 2d 337, 343 n 6 (NY 1986).

6. Dixon JL, Smalley MG: Jehovah's Witnesses. The surgical/ethical challenge. JAMA 1981; 246:2471-2472.

7. Kambouris AA: Major abdominal operations on Jehovah's Witnesses. Am Surg 1987; 53:350-356.

8. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood. Brooklyn, NY, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977, pp 1-64.

9. Pope denounces Polish crackdown. NY Times, January 11, 1982, p A9.

10. Office of the General Counsel: Medicolegal Forms with Legal Analysis. Chicago, American Medical Association, 1973, p 24.

11. Kleiman D: Hospital philosopher confronts decisions of life. NY Times, January 23, 1984, pp B1, B3.

12. Vercillo AP, Duprey SV: Jehovah's Witnesses and the transfusion of blood products. NY State J Med 1988; 88:493-494.

13. Wons v Public Health Trust, 500 So 2d 679 (Fla Dist Ct App) (1987); Randolph v City of New York, 117 AD 2d 44, 501 NYS 2d 837 (1986); Taft v Taft, 383 Mass 331, 446 NE 2d 395 (1983).

14. In re Osborne, 294 A 2d 372 (DC Ct App 1972).

15. Mill JS: On liberty, in Adler MJ (ed): Great Books of the Western World. Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 1952, vol 43, p 273.

Published in 1990