Why are other religions does not permit blood transfusion?

Question

Examples are the Jehovah's witness and 7th day adventist (correct me if i'm wrong).. what is your ideology behind this? As i have read in the bible, offering yourself for your brother's welfare, like donating blood or organs (to cite examples) is one of the greatest acts of love in the world. How can they not permit it in their sect?

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that individuals and families must make personal decisions regarding medical care and organ donations. As a religion, 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 2

There are various places in the Torah which prohibit the use of blood from animals, for instance Deuteronomy 12:16. These prohibitions are used by the Jews to forbid the consumption of meat from animals which have not been bled. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret them as meaning that blood may not be used in blood transfusions, and to some extent other situations such as the replacement of clotting factors for haemophiliacs and blood products used in vaccines. Although i don't think this is what the Bible meant, and in fact see this as very much interpreting against the grain of what it meant, it has led to a situation where much research has been done into bloodless surgery and other ways of avoiding blood transfusions, and this is a positive thing. It is now more widely recognised that when people have blood transfusions it is a little like an organ transplant and it often causes problems and slows recovery. Blood in surgery can be returned to circulation and plasma expanders can be used to keep the volume of the blood up. In other situations, the patient can simply recuperate, and there are also natural substances, such as erythropoietin, which can be used to boost blood production by the bone marrow. Having said that, there are situations where blood transfusions can save lives, and the main point of pouring the blood on the ground, as the Torah says, is probably to preserve its fertility for future generations, so i wouldn't say the Bible really prohibits it. Even so, it isn't quite as harsh as it sounds.

Answer 3

In the Old Testament, when preparing an animal to eat, the blood had to be drained out from it. It was against Gods laws to comsume blood, being that the blood is life. These examples are the only examples of why blood should not be consumed. Who knows why God would make such a commandment. I'm thinking it's more to prevent passing diseases that are blood borne.
Now in the present, certain sects have taken this further as to include blood transfusions, which is in a sense like consuming blood. This only applies to blood, not to organs. Hence bloodless operations have been invented to make it possible not to receive blood and to please these sects.
Sounds like a bit excessive to most people. There is though some scientific backing to help this. When introducing a foreign element into ones body, the body will reject it. This happens to organs, unless powerful drugs are introduced to prevent rejection. Someone elses blood is also a foreign element. Though blood loss is replaced with the volume of this new blood, the blood will reject it, but will reject it more easier than an organ. In the mean time, the patient technically gets sicker for a brief time until that foreign blood is out. As you can see, there may be some benefits to not taking blood. Also there are substitutes that can be used, like saline solutions, if volume is needed in the body.

Answer 4

Conundrum is right. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist too and blood transfutions are allowed.

I think (and have heard) that some religions do not allow blood transfusions because God says in the Bible that we shouldn't eat blood. I think drinking blood has to do with a healthy issue. I think it's not healthy, am not sure why; good theme to make a research though.

That's why --it's believed-- there are denominations which prohibit blood transfusions. However, (with all respect) drinking blood is not like transfusing blood. Of course, make sure your blood types match, otherwise now it could be dangerous.

This is the video when I heard about blood transfusions: http://www.amazingfacts.org/media/player.asp?pid=716&type=video

May God bless you!

Answer 5

I am an Sevent Day Adventist and have worked in a Seventh Day Adventist Hospital and Seventh Day Adventist DO NOT prohibit blood transfusions.

Answer 6

Consuming blood is forbidden. All Noahic religions forbid it. Other alternatives are pursued, like artificial fluids and parts.


It should be noted that using other people body fluids and parts might not be compatible with new hosts and the new hosts might reject them. Twins might have a better chance for compatibility.

It should be noted drinking someone's blood might actually be less lethal than a blood transfusion.

Answer 7

Other religions? other than what?
I'm Muslim, and my religion permit blood transfusion and organ donation.

Answer 8

THEY ARE CRAAAAAAAZY!!!!!! Anyone that would send their young children door to door has got to be out of there friggin mind!

Answer 9

For true Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’!

Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

How did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood? There has been a Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of blood throughout all stages of human existence:

"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43.

Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.

Minucius Felix (third century C.E.): “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancient than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his.

Blood Transfusions: Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

Some imply that the Bible itself doesn't say anything about "ingesting" blood, unless Jehovah’s Witnesses is using "ingesting" to mean, "eating." (Acts 25:28, 29) However, From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q= “ingestion”: Mean: 1 entry found for ingestion. Entry: absorption. Function: noun, Definition: taking in. Synonyms: assimilation, consumption, digestion, drinking in, exhaustion, fusion, imbibing, impregnation, incorporation, ingestion, inhalation, intake, osmosis, penetration, reception, retention, saturation, soaking up, suction, taking in Concept: consuming/using. (Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) Copyright © 2002 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.)

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?

Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.

All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527),
Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.”
Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10)
“‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.


"Blood products are useful but carry their own set of risks,...Thus whenever we can avoid using them, we should - not only in Jehovah's Witness patients, but in every patient." USC Health-Quarterly, Spring 2000 vol. 12 no.1