For the Jehova's witnesses?

Question

Since there is a law against transfusion of blood, what do you do whan your children get hurt in a car accident, or lose blood in some other way? I am really curious. Thanks.

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in getting the best medical care available for themselves and their families. Many individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses are themselves physicians and other health care professionals.

It is sad when those who have theological differences with the Witnesses actively work to spread misinformation about their beliefs. The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses have hundreds of hospital liaison committees around the globe to help advance nonblood medical management technologies and awareness in the medical community.

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/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

Though neither of my children have been in that position, I have been. May 29, 1988, on I-70 in Joliet, Illinois. Wife took an exit too fast and rolled the semi truck on the ramp. the top of the International Cabover was torn off, and the electrical wires from the walls rapped around my right leg and I fell. As I swung outward, my upper body slammed into the guard rail, doing significant internal injuries.

Now, I should mention that I was disfellowshipped by the Corning, CA JW Congregation in 1982, for cause. Two females in bed, not married to either.

We went to St. Joseph Hospital, where I was informed that I had severe internal injuries and was bleeding internally and from several deep lacerations of my leg. They needed to do surgery right away. I asked for the form to sign to refuse blood. As far as I know, I didn't get any, though now 18 years later, I don't remember what they used as a replacement, but I came through it.

Research, not only as a result of JWs, but also from Japan, where they have cultural beliefs against Blood and transplants, has result in many advances in bloodless treatments, even in emergencies. The are now several hospitals that have gone completely bloodless. UCLA now does transplants, even the liver, without blood transfusions.

Answer 3

Blood transfusions aren't the only way to survive after a large loss of blood. There are alternatives to blood transfusions. These alternatives are much healthier.

And for the 1st answer, absolutely NO blood is acceptable. There are alternatives that are. Acts 15;20

the link has the complete information about this.

Answer 4

For years experts have claimed that blood saves lives. Doctors may relate that someone with acute blood loss was transfused and got better. So people may wonder, ‘How medically wise or unwise is the Christian stand?’ Before considering any serious medical procedure, a thinking person will determine both the possible benefits and the potential risks. What about blood transfusions? The reality is that blood transfusions are fraught with many risks. They can even be fatal.

Recently, Drs. L. T. Goodnough and J. M. Shuck noted: “The medical community has long been aware that while the blood supply is as safe as we know how to make it, blood transfusion has always carried a risk. The most frequent complication of blood transfusion continues to be non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANBH); other potential complications include hepatitis B, alloimmunization, transfusion reaction, immunologic suppression, and iron overload.” Estimating ‘conservatively’ just one of those serious dangers, the report added: “It is anticipated that approximately 40,000 people [in the United States alone] will develop NANBH yearly and that up to 10% of these will develop cirrhosis and/or hepatoma [liver cancer].”—The American Journal of Surgery, June 1990.

Some might feel, ‘Transfusions are hazardous, but are there any alternatives?’ We certainly want effective medical care of high quality, so are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, yes. The New England Journal of Medicine (June 7, 1990) reported: “Physicians, increasingly aware of the risks of [AIDS] and other infections transmitted by transfusion, are reconsidering the risks and benefits of transfusions and are turning to alternatives, including that of avoiding transfusions altogether.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses have long refused blood transfusions, not primarily because of the health dangers, but because of obedience to God’s law on blood. (Acts 15:28, 29) Yet, skilled doctors have successfully cared for Witness patients without using blood, with its attendant risks. As just one among many examples reported in medical literature, Archives of Surgery (November 1990) discussed heart transplantation on Witness patients whose consciences permitted such a procedure without the administering of blood. The report said: “More than 25 years of experience performing heart surgery on Jehovah’s Witnesses has culminated in successful cardiac transplantation without administering blood products . . . No perioperative deaths occurred, and early follow-up studies have shown that these patients have not been more susceptible to higher graft rejection rates.”

Answer 5

There is certainly no law in the Bible against transfusion of blood. There is a law against eating ANIMAL meat that hasn't been bled (in which case the uneaten blood becomes a substitute for the forfeited life of the animal and is thus "returned" to God, symbolically. ) There is also a law against shedding or pouring out of HUMAN blood, which is murder.

The 'law against transfusion of blood' is a rule of the Watchtower Society.

Answer 6

There are alternatives to blood(which carries diseases). Right now they are testing coconut milk. It provides as much oxygen to the cells as a blood transfusion would, but with NO side effects. Its still a long way off from being approved...but without JW's and others who refuse blood transfusions...these advances might not be made.Presently they actually use a derivative of coconut milk for premature infants to help their lungs mature.

Answer 7

I often wonder that myself. My parents used to be JW's but aren't anymore. Funny thing is, several years after seeing the light, my mom ended up in the hospital and needed a blood transfusion. Alternatives or not, I still believe if my mom had stayed a JW she might be dead now. I can't imagine how God would approve....

Answer 8

I understood they had withdrawn that part of their religious laws and that, while still rare, whole blood transfusions are accepted in exceptional circumstances.

Blood derived products however are allowed, and most circumstances can be stabilised using blood plasma

Answer 9

Blood Transfusion versus Bloodless Surgery


Most people today are so accustomed to blood transfusions that many don’t even question the use of it in the medical world. Society regards blood as a life giving entity so precious that in the recent September eleven tragedy the nation had an overwhelming response to the Red Cross calls for blood donation. Well meaning individuals see it as giving back to the community, a patriotic thing to do, in the nation’s time of need. However, some have started questioning the necessity of blood use as medicine particularly in surgical process. Perhaps the largest group who consistently refuse blood transfusions throughout the world are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because of the misunderstood practice of this religious group, some doctors have changed their practice to help accommodate patients who refuse blood. Bloodless surgery has been developed and is now regularly practiced in hospitals around the world.

Because of the Jehovah’s Witnesses adamant refusal of blood transfusion, most of the pioneering process and technological advances were performed with members of this establishment. Most healthcare professionals have condemned this religious practice sighting consequences detrimental to a person’s well being and one’s life itself. Ironically, this is the same thinking use by the Witnesses in their refusal of blood transfusion. In the book of Acts chapter fifteen verses twenty-eight and twenty-nine, it discusses good health and adds abstaining from blood with fornication as part of its requirement to be clean. Still, the medical world is derived from scientific knowledge and not religious beliefs. Is there any room or need for bloodless surgery based on science and healthcare effectiveness and efficiency in our world today?

First let us examine blood as a medicine. Current medical belief agrees with giving blood transfusions to ailing patients to keep a high hemoglobin count that carries oxygen throughout our bodies. Blood supply today is regarded as clean and safe, especially after massive screening processes have been applied in the recent years. There is no doubt that blood transfusion is beneficial to one’s health and life.

Yet, as Dr. Paul Hebert an epidemiologist from Ontario, Canada implied there hasn’t been any study comparing wellness between transfused patients and bloodless healthcare performed since the advent of blood transfusion. He and colleagues followed 838 critically ill patients admitted in 25 hospitals and health care facilities in Canada. Eminently, mortality rates for those who received blood where higher than the ones who did not receive blood. In the younger test group, 5.7 percent of the no transfusion and restrictive transfusion patients died compared to 13 percent of those who were generously given transfusions. Even with the less sick, organ failure was extremely decreased for those who were not liberally transfused and had a death rate of 8.7 percent a lot less than the 16.1 percent death rate for those who infused blood in their system. Doctor Hebert quipped that a shortage of blood supply can help people’s health. The New England Journal Medicine of dated the 11th of February, 1999, commented and praised Hebert’s study, sighting enormous cost savings and health benefits to society.

One of the problems of blood transfusion is the effect it has on the body’s immune system. Many are aware that organ transplants such as a heart, can be rejected by the immune system. Many don’t realize that a blood transfusion is also a tissue transplant. Even in properly matched blood types, problems can incur with the immune system. The Medical World News dated the 11th of December 1989, had and article “ Case Builds Against Transfusion”, were immunological reactions were traced to transfusions.

The 1988 National Institute of Health conference also confirmed hemolytic transfusion reactions. A study reported by Annals, of Otology, Rhinology and Larynology, dated March 1989, that only 14 percent for no blood transfusion cancer of the larynx patients had a recurrence compared to 65 percent for the ones that had blood transfusion.

Another problem experienced through blood transfusion is infection. The August, 1988 “The British Journal of Surgery” reports, “Blood transfusions were associated with infectious complications when given pre-, intra-, or postoperatively … The risk of postoperative infection increased progressively with the number of units of blood given.” In addition, a 1989 conference by the American Association of Blood Banks, found that infection did not occur in any hip replacement surgery patients who did not have transfused blood while 23 percent had infections.

Many in health service organizations emphasize good well-being through knowledge and education. Yet, simple problems that can be incurred such as mentioned are not readily available to the public. The alternative bloodless surgery can not even be found in the websites of the World Health Organization, and Center of Disease Control. Perhaps these problems are just overblown by a small number of minorities. Is blood not an issue of pandemic or even epidemic proportions when it comes to international health?

Throughout history man has tried to conquer disease and prolong his existence. One of the ways man has used to accomplish this is controlling the vectors of transmission. Perhaps one of the most notorious vectors known is the mosquito. The deadly yellow fever and malaria are both transmitted when a mosquito draws blood from an infected person and transmits it to the next person or victim. The significance of controlling this vector is so high public training has been employed throughout the world in helping rid the environment of these pests. Although, one of the most common vectors of deadly diseases today is the medically administered blood transfusion and healthcare professionals are slow to react to this problem. Some if not many will refuse to provide any other alternative practice of medicine, putting their professional hypocrisy above the patient’s right to choose a method of medicine or refusal treatment particularly blood transfusion.

Today millions are infected with the silent disease Hepatitis C, mostly acquired through blood transfusion with infected blood. Many today are now just realizing the potential of this deadly disease and are deteriorating in health with failing kidneys. About ten years ago, organizations such as the American Red Cross implemented checks to screen donated blood infected with the hepatitis C virus. But then what diseases out there not being tested by a blood screening. A May 8, 1989 article by Medical World News quotes a director of the American Red Cross admitting the difficulty of adding more testing for individual infectious disease that might come out. The Center of Disease Control list blood transfusion as a high risk method to contaminating the various types of hepatitis.

Another problem disease is Chagas. Normally this is transmitted through a vector, an assassin bug that bites its victim on the face, sucks the blood out, and drops its feces on the open wound. Once infected, the victim acquires a deadly heart problem causing death. Infected people may carry the disease, concealed in their system for years before suffering any damages. Carriers donating blood are not weeded out and will infect others through blood transfusion. The Medical Post dated January 16, 1990, estimates about ten to twelve million in Latin America are infected through blood transfusion.

Perhaps nothing today can surpass the scare of contracting the Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome, (AIDS), in alarming and educating the public of the risk of spreading critical diseases through blood transfusion. Millions are literally dying of various types of HIV infection contracted from blood transfusion. It is hard to ignore that the same group of people who are accountable for curing us are the ones responsible for destroying millions of people’s lives by this blood sharing process. Even today some will swear that the blood supply is safe. The popular method of testing blood for HIV virus is the ELISA test and Western Blot Test. The tests try to detect HIV antibodies in a person’s blood. However, months could pass before an infected person produces noticeable amounts of antibodies. A negative test for the blood donor does not assure that the person is clean. A comment by Dr. Charles Huggins, a Massachusetts General Hospital Transfusion Driector in The Boston Globe Magazine dated, Ferbruary 4, 1990, summarizes the risk,” Blood has never been safer. But it must be considered unavoidably non-safe. It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.”

With the problems and consequences caused by blood transfusion, one would logically think that the medical world as a whole would change this blood transfusion practice. A blood volume expander such as saline solution, dextran, haemaccel, lactated Ringer’s solution, fuosol, and hetastarch are cleaner substitutes. They are less expensive, easier to store than blood, and one hundred percent disease free. Yet, most people have never heard of these solutions. How many emergency rooms carry these items in stock?

Society demands quality, better products, and service from our cars, restaurant visits, and clothing. Shouldn’t society demand better information and safer alternatives from our physicians? In business it is well understood that it is the customers choice that drives a sales transaction, the patient and not the physician. In an NBC news program Dateline, an interview of a neurologist, Dr. Steven Bailey showed his dissatisfaction publicly to a brain tumor patient who refused to accept blood in her surgery. He refused to provide any healthcare at all to the patient. Stacey, the patient, did have a successful brain surgery without blood transfusion from a bloodless hospital in New Jersey.

This is not to say that doctors are to be blamed. To illustrate the difficulty these professionals incur, here’s an experience of a doctor that was part of a surgical team that performed on a patient who refused blood for a duodenal ulcer complication. At the time he felt immense frustration for not being allowed to perform transfusion on the patient. At the time, he thought the patient would have been saved with the transfusion. Later he learned as stated by The British Journal of Surgery dated October 1986, that gastrointestinal hemorrhage increased from 2.5 percent to 10 percent mortality rate, four times higher when blood transfusions were used. The findings explained, “Early blood transfusion appears to reverse the hepercoagulable response to haemorrahge thereby encouraging rebleeding.” The world is constantly developing new technology and better process to make lives better, medicine is rapidly changing and old practice needs to improve. Blood letting has been done away with years ago, maybe blood transfusion should yield to a higher standard of procedure, bloodless surgery.

There are several processes and steps that lead to a successful bloodless surgery. It is imperative that one minimizes blood loss. In case of emergencies, stopping the bleeding should be number one priority. Next the blood volume must be restored to keep the blood pressure normal and to keep the patient from going into shock. Again, this can be done without the use of blood but synthetic fluids, as mentioned above, that resemble blood in carrying oxygen and minerals throughout the system. This will also keep the outstanding red blood cells and other blood elements flowing in the system. With the diluted blood more oxygen is discharged in the tissues.

Conserving red blood cells is the key to survival. The human body during surgery can function properly with the red cells being limited. With the blood expander and fifty percent of red blood cells, it can deliver seventy five percent of the normal oxygen delivery. During surgery when a patient is at rest, his body only needs twenty five percent of oxygen that is normally needed. Under general anesthesia, the patient’s requirement for oxygen also goes down. A woman, reported by Anaesthesia, dated January 1987, had hemoglobin levels of 1.8 gm/ dl with blood expander compared to 14 gm/dl at normal levels. By still unsubstantiated reasoning anesthesiologists perform unnecessary blood transfusion before administering anesthesia to patients with less than 10 gm/dl.

The next process for bloodless surgery is stimulating blood production. During scheduled surgery, patients are given iron rich mixtures into muscle tissues and the circulatory system to promote the production of red cells by the body. This alone helps red cell production go up four times faster. Erythropoietin hormone encourages the bone marrow to manufacture more red cells and is a natural product of the kidneys. A synthetic, genetically created, erythropoietin has been available now for years to help speed up red cell formation by the bone marrow.

Again, during planned surgery, the ultra high red cell blood can be extracted and diluted with synthetic fluids. During the operation when blood loss occurs, most of the loss will be from the synthetic fluid and not the blood. The hemodilution results in significantly reduced red cell loss.

Coagulation of the blood can also be improved which will lessen extensive bleeding. Cuts are quickly healed, faster than the normal rate. Cooling down a patient’s body temperature also lessens the need for oxygen; ergo the consequences of reduced red cells will not be a factor.

Recovering lost blood is another feature bloodless surgeons utilize. As bloods drip away from the patient it is collected, filtered, cleaned, and returned to the patient intravenously. These machines have been successfully used throughout the world.

The surgery itself is now aided by technologically advance laser machines and elecetrocautery. Laser scalpels are so precise bleeding is kept to a minimum. It is obvious to conclude that bloodless surgeons are the epitome of today’s medical doctors performing high proficiency work for the benefit of society. Efficiency in their work is a must to preserve any unnecessary blood loss.

With the consequences of blood transfusion such as bacterial infections, tissue rejection complications, weakening of the immune system, and the possible spread of morbid communicable disease, shouldn’t healthcare providers finally reject this ancient deadly practice? Today, people demand safer airlines and automobiles, then it is only natural for society to demand better healthcare such as bloodless surgery available to everyone. Replacement of blood with clean synthetic fluids, availability of precise surgical machines, and further training for doctors around the world should be a requirement. The marginal cost of bloodless surgery is lower than the benefits. Wellness will improve, deaths related to blood transfusion will disappear. International health is better served without the sharing of human blood.

Reference
American Association of Blood Banks conference, 1989
Anaesthesia, January 1987
Annals, of Otology, Rhinology, and Larynology, March 1989
Bloodless Medicine & Surgery Institute, www.bmsi.net, Mentor OH
Boston Globe Magazine, February 4, 1990
British Journal of Surgery, October 1986, and August 1988
Dateline NBC, (1999), New York, N.Y.
Englewood Hospital and Med Center, www.bloodlessmed.com, Englewood, NJ
How Can Blood Save Your Life?, (1990), Brooklyn, N.Y.
The Medical Post, January, 16, 1990
Medical World News, May 8, 1989, and December 11, 1989
Museum of Science and Industry, www.msichicago.org, Chicago, IL
National Institute of Health conference, 1988
New England Journal Medicine, Feb, 11, 1999
No Blood – Medicine Meets the Challenge Video, (2001) New York, N.Y.
Riverview Surgery Center, www.bloodless-surgery.org