Re Jehova witness?

Question

I asked a question last night re J.W. One thing I want to add and that is, a J.W. as an adult, I don't have any problem with that, infact I admire them for their faith and devotion even after all the abuse they get they still go on preaching the bible of Jehova
What I am against and all good people non J.W. of the world is a child dying as a result of the J.W. parent refusing life saving blood. It is a parents responsibility to feed, protect and when that child is ill to give them the medical help they need including blood, if I as a parent of 2 children refused my child any of these and my chid or both became seriously ill or died as a result, then I shall be liable for child abuse or murder and I would have every parent after my blood if I did that.
I am an ex ambulanceman and I was called to an RTA in which a 7 year old girl died after her parents refused blood. She died in the O. R.

Message for Nomi who answered lastnight, please tell your uncle I respect him for giving his child the blood he/she needed to save his/her life, this is exactly what I am getting on about.

The lady in the renal unit next bed to me a J.W. said she would let her child die as a result of refusing blood if it came to it, but her kids are now adults not 7 years old, what do you think she would have done if her kid was 7? I don't think she would have let it die. I told her it is murder to let a child die as a result of refusing life saving blood.
I myself have life threatening illnesses.

Blood today is screened for everything, ok yes the odd bad one does get through unnoticed either by pure accident or intentially by someone out to kill.
If one bag of infected blood got through the checks all J.W's would have a whale of a time saying told you. I am a Catholic and I am not told to refuse blood.

message for Pebs, you are correct surgeons have had it overridden.
Little girl died in late 1970's

Answer 1

Bubbles, I agree this is a difficult area and I thing that even the most devout Jehova's Witness can not say for certain what they would do until they are placed in that situation.

Once when I was working on a cardiothoracic ward a young lady in her 30's came in on ablue light. She had a disecting aortic aneurysm, which basically means the largest blood vessel in her body was leaking. When the doctors explained that they were going to operate immediately in order to repair the vessel the lady replied that she was a Jehova's witness and would not accept a blood transfusion. This reduced her chances of survival dramatically but she was adamant.

The doctors explained that they could set up a system where her own blood would be collected and given back to her, but the lady still refused stating it was God's will. The ladies family, including her nine year old son pleaded with her to change her mind, even the hospital chaplain urged her to accept the blood. But she still refused to accept the help.

As predicted the lady later died during surgery, she left behind a husband and her son. The whole situation left me feeling very uneasy. I am not a religious person but I do respect other peoples' beliefs. However this time I could not understand how this lady could value her own life and the happiness of her husband and child less than her religion. As to be expected the boy took his Mothers' death badly and I was left feeling that he may grow up to resent his mothers beliefs as they had left him without a Mother.

In an emergency situation Doctors have the power to perfom necessary treatment without consent. However they can not do this if the person has explicity refused treatment prior to the emergency. This leaves them powerless to act in these situations, but I have heard of cases where a court has overruled a patients' decision to refuse blood, see below:

http://www.nursinglaw.com/blood3.htm

However I do agree that a child should never die as a result of a religious practice and that Doctors should be able to act in the best interests of the child, who may not be able to speak for themselves, or even truly comprehend the implications of refusing blood.

Answer 2

I would say that it would be easier for you to get the information on why Jehovah's witnesses feel the way they do, if you read some of their literiture.

Of course a witness would not want the child to die and would do as much as possible to get proper medical aid, however, even most medical proffesionals will say that blood is never 100% safe, anyway.
There is much that can be given to help in a medical situation, and it does not always have to be blood.
To say that a parent who would not give blood to a child does not care or is abusive is not fair.
Of course these things will be harder for non witnesses to believe or even understand, but a witness believes that taking blood is a violation of a command from God, and they also believe that God will put all matters straight in the end.

If you do some real medical research i am sure you will find that there are many Doctors who totally understand the idea of refusing blood and many probably do not accept it themselves.
How long did it take for hiv to be discovered? how many people were or have been given a potentially fatal, or life threatening disease due to having accepted blood?
I wonder how many diseases not yet discovered are lurking in all that blood?

Nobody can say for certain that if somebody who was "saved" by a blood transfusion, might not have survved also had they taken a blood alternative- yes there are alternatives for blood, but they cost slightly more, need a bit more time sometimes but honestly they are safer.

Answer 3

As a former Jehovah's Witness, I would have let my child die rather than have a blood transfusion. That would have been my decision based on these 2 things:

1. I felt that it was against the Bible command to 'abstain from blood' to accept a blood transfusion and I would be disobeying God's law to allow my child to have a transfusion. and

2. I really had no choice in the matter anyhow. The all-powerful Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has made it an unwritten rule that if a JW approves a blood transfusion, they will automatically be excommunicating themselves from the religion. Being excommunicated means their entire life is taken from them - their friends and family that are JW's will no longer have anything to do with them, they will be shunned (just like the Amish). Your own flesh and blood that are Witnesses will pass you on the street and not acknowledge you - you may as well be dead.

It is useless to argue with a JW about the stupidity of their blood policy. It is riddled with inconsistencies, such as: you can't "store" blood, yet you can let your blood be drawn, then "stored", then tested, and that's fine. You can't "use" blood in any way, yet you can allow it to be drawn and "used" for testing. The "extension of the circulatory system" argument is a way out so that Witnesses are allowed to use dialysis; but if the Governing Body had never approved, or originated, that argument, then Witnesses would also reject dialysis.

Witnesses can also accept blood fractions - in reality there's no part of blood that is totally forbidden - you just can't have it at the same time. This is an example of their reasoning: It's a sin to eat a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. But you can eat the bacon, the bread, the lettuce and the tomato, as long as you eat them all separately and not at the same time.

Bottom line: JW's reject whatever they're told to reject by their GB. If someone tells you that JW's make their own personal decision about their medical treatment involving blood, that is for the most part, untrue. They are not allowed to use their conscience in deciding whether to have a blood transfusion. If they were to conscientiously accept a blood transfusion (even of their OWN blood), they would be automatically disassociated and shunned. They couldn't "repent" because they had done nothing wrong, according to their own conscience, so any "repentance" they professed would have to be strictly to please the guys who make the rules.

Why kind of religion forces their members to comply with man-made rules even in violation of their own personal conscience? And then convinces them that it's THEIR OWN CHOICE?

Answer 4

J.W is not a relgion it is a cult. Here is what they say about blood:

"The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits. . . . The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood." (Watchtower 9/15/1961, pages 564)

This is just a fascination quote in itself. It seems ridiculous to think that such sins reside in physical blood. In truth, we are by nature sinners, not that sin resides in blood.

I could go into how they change the bible and deny the deity of Christ but that's for another question. We need to pray for them and bring the true Good News of Christ and Salvation to them.

For more infor on J.W. see this web site:

http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

Answer 5

There are enough stories about children dying in Canada as a result of this belief system that there are judges on call around the clock to order care that parents do not allow for whatever reason (blood transfusions, cancer treatment etc.)
JW's are not the only guilty party here . Some word-faith people feel that an acknowlegement of cancer is a "negative confession" and thus is to be avoided and so too the treatment.

Answer 6

The parents are responsible for there children whatever there beliefs but if there faith is stronger than there love for there child then they need to seriously rethink there beliefs.

The doctors should have tried to get an emergancy restraining order in order to protect the child from her parents.

My children will always come first, before myself, my husband and my own parents and siblings.

Answer 7

I fully agree with you and think that the law should be changed so that it is in the hands of the medical staff to over ride any decision by brainwashed parents who are content to see their offspring die because of their beliefs,surely this is a case of murder,I have first hand experience of this as my aunt and uncle were JWs and they let my cousin die because of thier so called faith

Answer 8

Maybe I am wrong but can the medical profession not overide the parents refusal by going to court. I am sure I read it somewhere that this has already happened.

Answer 9

i assume each and every each and every now and then the 2d be conscious is off. yet i admire my ascertain's strategies. My Dad likes to have interplay them in communique. He asks them what style of refrigerator they have, then he says properly we've a "insert any refrigerator type this isn't comparable to theirs". Then my Dad says "we are very pleased with our refrigerator, it keeps our nutrition cool. i'm particular you're very pleased with your refrigerator too. the two refrigerators may be diverse manufacturers, yet they are in fact a similar. you spot the element is however - i don't come on your place and consider out to sell you a diverse refrigerator, whilst the only you have have been given works completely properly." My Mum's technique is diverse. The JWs that used to return to our place generally further little kiddie JWs in strollers with them. We had a huge black labrador (she replaced into very friendly and does not harm every person). So the person JWs might circulate approximately their schpiel and our dogs might start up licking the newborn in the stroller. At which factor the person JWs might look at my mom in horror and say some thing to the effect of "you're dogs is licking our newborn, are not you going to stop it" and then my Mum might say, "Nope, it is her backyard, it is her territory that your newborn is in, i assume in the experience that your newborn wasn't in her territory then she does not be liking him". At which factor they in many cases gave up on saving our souls and left. playstation i'm not anti JW, considered one of my friends is JW, yet i'm anti people who attempt to impose their ideals on others. Plus i'm a med pupil - so, however i've got not experienced it myself, I kinda "get" the place you're coming from with the refusal of blood products to babies who are not however sufficiently old to truly settle for a faith as their very own. I definitely have a query, is it Mormons or SDAs or JWs or yet another faith that have faith there's a constrained style of places in heaven and that people who convert the main human beings gets those places? (kinda makes spreading the religion an excellent purchase much less altruistic does not it?). Please suitable me if this isn't the case. nb: I purely listed those faiths; Mormons, SDAs and JWs, as i know it is between the faiths that used to door knock somewhat generally in our section, yet i don't keep in mind which one. i don't recommend to lump all of them together or recommend that they are each and every of a similar

Answer 10

I totally agree with you, why do they have children if they are not willing to give them the same chances as other children