I don't remember the exact religion he was, but I think it was one of the two.
Someone I used to work with carried a note in their wallet about their wishes on blood transfusion; That they wish not to have one when and if needed. So, say they don't have their wallet on them or the doctors/paramedics fail to see the note, and he gets a blood transfusion or blood donated to him to save his life. What happens when he comes to and realizes what has happened? I'm sure there will be a lot of grief, but are they disowned or severly looked down upon by their church/family/friends?
Thanks!
2007-01-11 20:16:41 · 17 answers · asked by *Chinisu* 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
A Jehovah's Witness who receives a blood transfusion mistakenly or against his will is never "looked down upon" by his fellow Witnesses. It seems quite likely that the Witness himself will feel somewhat troubled, especially if he could have taken obvious steps to protect his religious sensibilities ahead of time.
If there seems to have been a conscious decision by the trauma team to defy or remain purposely ignorant of a "No Blood" medical directive, then most (yes, "most") Jehovah's Witnesses would pursue the matter in the justice system.
In most states in the USA, performance of a medical procedure against the patient's expressed wishes is actually a criminal matter and not merely a civil (lawsuit) matter. Yet the Witnesses' primary concern is not for secular law, but for God's law.
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
2007-01-11 20:42:27 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
First, please note that only 10% of those refusing blood transfusion are Jehovah's Witnesses. The are now several bloodless hospitals in the country, with more heading that way. UCLA now does bloodless transplants, including the Liver. Recently I carried a transplant team in my taxi from the downtown airport and back again. They specifically request me because of the electronics and internet access in my taxi cab.
They were here to harvest a liver and take it to California to UCLA. They've told me about the operation and how more difficult it is, plus is done in a very cold surgical ward, but the benefits include far less post surgical infections and problems immune system problems.
As for being given a transfusion without a person knowledge, provided they survive, nothing unusual happens. They don't become the center of interest, or anything else. It simply is something that happened outside their control.
On this issue, anyone not wanting their 5 year old daughter getting the HPV Vaccination can thank the Jehovah's Witnesses. If not for them, you would have no choice in the matter.
2007-01-11 22:21:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
We Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood. However, if someone received a transfusion against their will they would certainly not be rejected. I saw someone say that in another answer. It is not true. It would be very sad if that happened. Most hospitals, at least in my area, now have to ask permission before giving blood.
2007-01-13 16:11:02 · answer #3 · answered by Ish Var Lan Salinger 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
PLEASE READ ME
To anser your question, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!
But I wanted to add this personal experience to 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). I gave a copy of this to my doctor to have on file. I took a copy with me all three times I thought I was in labor (again, first child) so that it would be on file, and I had a copy with me in my suitcase.
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.
2007-01-12 18:12:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lev.17:11,12" the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put It upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: "NO SOUL OF YOU MUST EAT BLOOD AND NO ALIEN RESIDENT WHO IS RESIDING IN YOUR MIDST SHOULD EAT BLOOD". Gen 9:3,4"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-IT'S BLOOD-YOU MUST NOT EAT." Medical professionals agree that BLOOD has the consistency of HUMAN FLESH that has been liquefied, as in a blender. So, in effect, taking in blood even through a blood transfusion could be likened to ingesting human flesh in liquefied form. Also, there is no specific test to disprove that blood could be a conduit for disease that could harm instead of helping the patients. (e.g. aids, hepatitis, Nile fever, herpes, malaria and other diseases that currently has no effective test for early detection.) That is why Jehovah's Witnesses carry a no blood card in their possession at all times just in case the unexpected happens. That is why there are Liaison officers in the hospital to make sure that the patient's wishes are respected and followed. If after all these safeguards are taken and still the unfortunate event happens, the brother/sister is not held accountable because this happened not of their own accord...
2007-01-11 20:49:45 · answer #5 · answered by pilgrim 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
" i do not really opt for to modern-day my opinion.?". particular you do! that's why you reported " Many genuine Christians do not evaluate ..." You defining your self and others who share interior the perception of the Trinity doctrine as " genuine" christians at the same time as in truth Jesus Christ and his early followers would reject that idea of him being portion of a Godhead. No offense- yet as a Catholic you should do analyze on the " Genesis" of the Trinity doctrine and also you would locate that a Pagan through the call of Constantine all started this entire problem. Jehovah's Witnesses at the instantaneous are not basically Christians- yet genuine christians at that.the love displayed among their brothers & sisters and spending infinite hours interior the Ministry basically as " Jesus & his followers, inclusive of Paul- and Noah did, is self obvious that the love Jesus spoke about is on complete demonstrate among those human beings. ultimately- its the founding father of Christianity who recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians.
2016-10-17 01:00:41 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they wouldn't be looked down upon, especially if the blood was given to them without their consent. But in cases like this, more than likely their family members would be there and would hopefully support there wishes. Also JW's are recommended to keep copies of such legal info and pass on to their dr and family in case this should ever happen. But in answer they wouldn't be looked down upon because of this if it was without their consent.
2007-01-11 20:24:45 · answer #7 · answered by joyofjoys 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Probably not, but the hospital could be in pretty big trouble. In the case of someone who cannot answer for themselves, we're supposed to search the papers of someone who is in distress to find out this very thing. I can't say if his church would disown him (besides, how UN-Christian would that be??), but he could sue the hospital for not finding out ahead of time.
2007-01-11 20:26:41 · answer #8 · answered by weary0918 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It may have already been said, but this is not a Mormon issue.
Of the two you mentioned, it is a JW issue - for some JW's. I wouldn't think anything would happen to them as it was outside their control. Papa Bear should get Best Answer, as he has first hand knowledge of the JW's.
2007-01-12 03:36:19 · answer #9 · answered by Tonya in TX - Duck 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i don`t know what could happen.. i guess he/she would be treated like a martire for doing something that was against his will.. but this idea is so stupid that even makes me sick.. that cult is actually giving its members a free pass to die.. because nobody can know whathever can happen in life and when are they going to need a blood transfusion
2007-01-11 20:24:58 · answer #10 · answered by Dora 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
That's probably Jehovah's Witness. It is evil for denying blood transfusions to those who need it. May God curse it.
2007-01-11 20:24:47 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋