2006-10-19 07:18:33 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think that they are when the person dies. They usually get a court order for the transfusion to go against the family.
2006-10-19 07:22:10 · answer #1 · answered by † PRAY † 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if the relative wanted a blood transfusion or not as well as their age.
If you were in a coma and someone decided to give you a blood transfusion, and that's what ended up killing you, should that someone be charged with manslaughter?
Aside from that, it's up to each of us personally what we want to happen to us medically speaking. If you haven't put your medical issues in writing, then whose to know what you want or don't want? Your closest relative will have to decide for you.
Also, medically speaking, blood transfusions haven't proven to be a very effective "safety net" for doctors. There are too many diseases you can get through blood, many of which can kill. And if they don't store the blood correctly that can kill you. It can also make for a longer recovery period, which for many weak people trying to recover, if they catch a cold after a blood transfusion, they could die. The way I see it, doctors use blood transfusions as an easy way out, so as not to have to do anything with thinking. There's plenty of other "non-blood" options out there that it shouldn't even be an issue.
2006-10-19 14:32:37 · answer #2 · answered by CHRISTINA 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because even though I don't totally agree with their view, a person must follow their own conscience and make their own decisions in matters like these.
It's a shame, though, that JW's are actually following the direction of their religious leaders and not their conscience because the religion gives them no choice if they want to continue as a member and not be shunned by their friends and family.
The conscience of a JW is trained not to go against their religious leaders, so for most Witnesses, they have no problem refusing. However, there are some who, if they actually were able to use their God-given freedom of conscience, could accept a blood transfusion in extreme emergencies. Sadly, they are not allowed that freedom to choose, regardless of what you may read on Yahoo Answers.
I speak from personal experience of being a JW for many years.
2006-10-20 08:44:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because perhaps they are allowing God to do the healing in that relative, although self-sacrifice (in giving blood) is most honorable in Christianity. However, no one should be FORCED to give blood, or else be called a manslaughter-er. Jehovah's Witnesses probably have religious reasons for denying blood transfusions, but they are probably not scriptural. Christ Himself gave the ultimate blood transfusion to humanity, to save our lives. But JW's do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, come in the flesh. They worship the Father (Jehovah) only - much like a Muslim.
2006-10-19 14:28:30 · answer #4 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you read the bible? Then you know that every other thing in the bible have to do with blood, sex or manslaughter ,wars and catastrophes. Then the blood was not tainted like the likes of our present blood, the getting a transfusion of blood is playing the Russian roulette.
2006-10-19 14:25:05 · answer #5 · answered by antonioavilakiss 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So let me get this straight most people feel that it is wrong to allow someone to die for any reason?
So I can charge a relative who allowed their family member to die in the Army, Air Force, etc with manslaughter.
Or what about the religious organizations that became recruiting centers for the military?
Aren't they guilty also?
Why is one form of death acceptable and another form of death not?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not tell others that they can't have a blood transfusion. They each make that decision for themselves.
2006-10-19 18:42:25 · answer #6 · answered by TeeM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
morally the Jw have the right based on their vew of the scriptures. what most do not realize that blood has never had the scientific tests that all medicine goes threw before being made legal. the medical community has many non blood options avialble so the need for blood is not as important as it used to be. I have a good christian friend who is dying from aids because of a transfusion from blood recieved before blood was tested for that virus. He now regrets allowing blood to be used on him during the operation. personally because of my lack of faith in the medical and scientific world i would never take blood. add to the that the fact that when man was given the right to eat meat. God command that the blood be poured out and not consumed. God did not want his followers at that time to use it, because many a pagan religion used blood in their regular worship to their good, and part took of it by drinking it
2006-10-19 14:36:56 · answer #7 · answered by redsyoungstud 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I used to be a Jehovah's Witness, and I don't agree with this "policy" of theirs. It it only for making blood transfusion decisions for their own children, until the child is 18. They even carry cards that state "DO NOT GIVE ME BLOOD" in case they are incapacitated. I think parents should use all efforts and available resourced to keep their children alive. Hense the before stated fact USED TO BE a Jehovah's Witness.
2006-10-19 14:21:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. God can heal someone who may need a blood transfusion without a blood transfusion.
A person is charged with manslaughter if they purposely poison someone, like put a bad disease in the blood, then give a blood transfusion with tainted blood.
2006-10-19 14:22:11 · answer #9 · answered by t_a_m_i_l 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The legal system does not permit refusal to administer life critical medical care by anyone other than the individual receiving it, except in certain hopeless cases. Medical professionals will administer it anyway even without permission.
JWs have gone to jail for this in the past, and likely will continue to do so.
2006-10-19 14:21:45 · answer #10 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋