WHY do Jehovah's refuse blood products?

Question

Blood products including plasma etc!

Is it the risk of infection JW don't or the known complications which the risk of are not acceptable? I have talked in depth with several JW [ excuse the abbreviation }and have had several good arguments ALL different. Many make reference to the scriptures and the view of non consumption in any form. I have even heard of a JW group founded to try and update the followings as they believe blood transfusions are safer than ever. WHY DO OTHER JW TURN THERE BACK ON THOSE WHO ACCEPT BLOOD OR HAVE IT GIVEN WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN IN TRAUMA SITUATIONS AND IT HAS BEEN OUT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE CONTROL! Still a little confused I admit, some great explinations please keep them coming. Regards J x

Answer 1

Because as was noted by another poster, their "governing body" (equivalent to the pope) tells them not to.

Why do they tell them that?

Because they interpret scriptures that say not to eat animal blood to mean "don't take blood into your body". They totally distort the reason behind not eating animal blood. Obviously if God just didn't want us to take blood into our bodies, he would not allow the eating of animals in the first place.

The reason for refraining from eating animal blood is because it is a symbolic gesture which is indicative of returning the "soul" of the DEAD animal - it's life, as symbolized by the blood - back to God. It is purely symbolic, but JW's interpret the scripture very literally. There is a huge difference in eating animals and taking a blood transfusion. The animal has to die in order for you to eat its flesh - it's life is forfeited - the blood symbolizes the FORFEITED life. In the case of blood transfusion, no life is forfeited so need of a symbolic gesture to "give back" that life to God.

Although there is a basic principle (respect for life) that is the same, whether human or animal, the fact that God allows us to kill and eat animals - but not humans - makes a huge difference in the way this principle should be applied. Of course, if you killed someone to obtain his blood for a transfusion, that would be equivalent to "eating" the blood of an animal - taking "life" that you were not entitled to.

JW's do not recognize any difference, other than recognizing that it's wrong to kill humans.

Answer 2

PLEASE READ ME

The why has been covered in other posts. But this should clear up some misconceptions.

When I gave birth to my first daughter, I had an episiotomy and they used forceps. Due to the manner the forceps were used I was torn all the way down my birthing canal on both sides, plus my episiotomy tore.

Needless to say, the doctors wanted to give me blood. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I will not take blood. What most people don't know, is that we take this issue very seriously. We research ALL options. We discuss with our doctors in advance, JUST IN CASE. I filled out a Medical Directive, indicating what alternatives I would have no issues with. (I believe I gave 3 or 4 options).

My doctor refused to look at the directive, and told the nurse I could go home with Iron Tablets since I didn't care if I lived or died. My husband called one of our local elders, who is on the Medical Liason Committee. He brought research articles from both JW's and non JW's. My doctor refused to look at those things, as well. We had to get another doctor on board before I could then stay and get treatment. I was not sent home for 5 days. All the while, I was receiving one of the four options I had in place in my medical directive before I ever went into labor. By the way, my daughter was fine. The most beautiful thing I've ever seen (and worth all the trouble.)

Life is just as precious to us as to anyone else, we choose to live our lives, to the best of our ability, in a manner that pleases God.

Answer 3

It states, His birth parents, Lindberg Sr. and Rachel Wherry, who do not have custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly influenced by his legal guardian, his aunt Dianna Mincin, who is also a Jehovah's Witness. After reading his I wondered why all this time the boy was sick and his parents never came until he went to court. As for him being unduly influenced The judge made his point: The judge said his decision was based strictly on facts. "I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," With the transfusions and other treatment, the boy had been give a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years. If a person follows what they believe in right, and that belief is in the Bible, why should he not follow it. Just to live a few extra years. God tells us if we follow his laws he will bring us back to life. The boy decided to follow the Bible and God has not forgotten him.

Answer 4

It should be noted that only 10% of those refusing blood are witnesses.

There are now over a dozen hospitals that are now bloodless. UCLA now performs bloodless transplants.

There is so much in the Bible that they could not have understood the science behind why something should or should not be done. In our modern times, we are learning just how the science fits.

There is no safe blood transfusion, even if there is no infectious agent present in it. Every transfusion lowers the body's immunal response and the exact same manner as AIDS does. There may or may not be any connection, but the fact if that it leaves you open very rare diseases, just like AIDS. It still requires coming into contact with the disease for it to become a problem.

That aside, there is the growing problems with contamination of the blood supply. We had a conference here in Kansas City of blood transfusion experts from throughout the planet. I had several in my taxi cab. In England, they no longer give locally donated blood to anyone under age 18, because of mad cow disease contamination. They are not the only one. They said we are fooling ourselves if we think the problem has not happened here, but the fact is that a large percentage of the blood donated here is not use here or for Americans overseas.

The sale of blood and blood products is big money, to where there is a growing problem with over bleeding of those who donate or sell their blood. When you over bleed, the immune system gets activated, causing a production of chemicals to create clots. That can be a problem for those receiving the blood, to suddenly get a blockage in a vein.

The fact is that what the JWs have done for over 50 years has made the care of patients safer. It is why you must give permission to have your child treated. There is also one benefit of their work for those who do take transfusions. It has driven down the cost as corporations compete to keep demand up.

Answer 5

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who will not take blood. Many in the medical field know that it is safer to have bloodless surgery.

However, Jehovah's Witnesses only reason for not taking blood is that God forbids at Acts 15: 29 "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good Health to you."

God created us and knows what's best for us. Blood is very sacred to him. It is by the pouring out of Jesus blood that we have forgiveness of sins.

You should be thanking Jehovah's Witnesses for insisting on the best medical care and pushing surgeons to do a better job.


01/12/07: I don't know any Jehovah's Witnesses that would consider taking blood. It maybe someone that is associated, but not a baptized witness that told you that they would take blood.

I have known several JW's that were told they would die if they did not take blood. They did not. I have a personal experience. My mother died in child birth, the doctors said she died because she would not take blood. Two month after my mother died, a woman came in with the same problem as my mother, they gave her blood and she still died. On the show e.r. , they had the same situation happen with a pregnant woman, they gave her blood and she still died. There are case when someone losses so much blood so fast that there is nothing that can be done. But I know my mother died faithful and stood up for what she believed and will have the hope of a resurrection.

Read "Natesgirl" comments...

Answer 6

I am a Jehovah's Witness and carrying on from a prevous comment yes because it says in the bible not to consume blood. and that applies to eating it eg. we don't eat black pudding which has blood in it but also we don't except blood tranfusions as to us it is the same as eating it, because for example if your doctor told you not to drink alchole and you had it injected into your veins you would still be drinking it in a way and it would still have the same effect on you. Jehovah said in the Bible not to eat it so we don't have it injected either.
If you want to know any more details ask a Jehovah's witness next time they call. Also on a side point it costs a fortune to give blood transfusions and there is safer (no risk of getting aids as its not detectable in blood) methods of doing the same job. eg. Salvesaver machines which are now in alot of hospitals. alot of surgens now will only do bloodless surgery as they think giving blood transfusions is more dangerous than not.

Answer 7

They will tell you it's because the Bible says to "abstain" from blood but most of their arguments are based on medical reasons why it's a Jolly Good Thing To Avoid Blood Transfusions. When the AIDS scare first errupted, they had a field day. To read their literature, you'd think every transfusion guaranteed a plague of something, if it didn't outrightly kill you.

The fact is, they are prepared to die for lack of whole blood because their 12 leaders tell them it's God's revealed truth (to them, the leaders). Up to the 1945 it wasn't an issue. No JWs even thought about it. Then their leaders printed articles saying they must refuse blood and the deaths began. But medical reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with this. If there was not one single good medical reason for avoiding blood, they would STILL die rather than take it. Their own writings say, "Yet the stand taken by JWs is above all a religious one; it is a position based on what the Bible says." "The fundamental reason why they do not accept blood transfusions is what the Bible says. Theirs is basically a religious objection, not a medical one."

From 1961 disfellowshipping became the punishment for JWs who did not toe the Society line. That leads to ostracism, even by family, and the terror that they'll die at Armageddon. This has had to be toned down, for legal reasons, but the intimidation is still severe. With the advent of new surgical techniques, the loss of life is less than it was, and also Society leaders are now "permitting" more and more blood fractions, so that JWs can virtually take every single component of blood, just so long as it isn't "whole", in the "skin" of a full blood transfusions. The goal-posts have been moved so wide apart it's becoming a sick farce. Yes, it's good for individuals today who are spared death, but what comfort is that for JW relatives who lost loved ones in previous years when the "rules" were much more strict? And since when did God demand the symbol for life be more important than life itself?

Answer 8

What's really interesting to me is that, because there are enough Jehovah's Witnesses out there refusing blood, they get treated better and more carefully in situations where other patients just get pumped full of somebody else's possbily tainted blood. In fact, there are non-blood products now that are safer (cleaner) than blood. I'm not a member of their society, but I sure do agree with this particular practice.

Answer 9

This is the answer I gave to another question about why people go to Doctors.

This reminds me of a story I heard once about people that want to believe that God will DO EVERYTHING FOR THEM.

The story goes there once was a man that believed God would take care of him no matter what happened. One day a storm hit his town and the river started raising. The man climbed up to the second story of his house and was crying, "God where art thou, save me?" A few minutes later a man came by in a boat and told the man to jump in and he will save him. The man refused saying, "God will save me." The man in the boat left.

The waters started rising even more until the man had to climb on his roof. He again cried, "God where for art thou, save me? A few minutes later a helicopter came along and lowered a rope. The pilot told the man to climb the rope and he would save him. The man again said, "No thank you, God will save me?

The helicopter then left. The water rose even higher and washed the man off the roof and he drowned.

When he got to Heaven he asked God, "Where were you? I believed in you knowing you would save me.

God replied, "Where were you when I sent the boat, and the helicopter" I did send help.

Moral of the story is God will help but we have to be receptive to his voice. It may not be what we expect.

Answer 10

Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject blood products.

The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament law.

The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system.

They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then (ca.1940),so,there would never be much of a body count causality.