I don't understand Jehovah Whiteness beliefs?

Question

O.K. for the people who haven't heard a couple in B.C had sextuplets, they were born at 25 weeks, which is about 6 months, and 2 of them have died. The doctors said they would need blood transfusions to survive, now being Jehovah Witnesses the parents don't believe in it, however the government of B.C. took control, and gave 3 of the 4 children blood transfusions, The parents are demanding an apology, now here is my question, and I just want to understand.
How can parents, especially a mother, knowing let their babies die because of their religious belief, if there was anything I could do for my child that would save their life I would do it no matter what, even if it meant for me to give up my life

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Sextuplets.php

I am not tring to sound judgmental, and I'm sorry if that comes off like that, I am tring to understand, I want to know things like do people question their religion when it come to something like this? And I wanted to know why Blood was so bad, I;m sorry I offended some of you, but I thought the reason to ask questions was to better understand things.

Answer 1

We Jehovah's Witnesses love our families and will do all we can to help them, until it reaches point that violates what God has commanded.

There are alternatives to treatment that do not require blood, and many medical centers that specialize in non blood alternatives. Many of these have websites where you can read about them, such as http://www.noblood.org and for the others just do a search for no blood medicine.

We do not refuse treatment, we just want one of the alternatives. Doctors cannot guarentee that one WILL die without the treatment, nor can they guarentee that they will live with it.

When the choice is between two or more treatments in areas where blood is not the issue, parents usually are granted the right to decide for their minor children which alternative to use. (Maybe between chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical.)

However, for some reason this becomes an issue for those who do not understand or accept our beliefs when the choice is between blood or non-blood alternatives. Perhaps part of the reason for this attitude is the biased way in which such news items are often presented. Note this first paragraph from

Answer 2

You said that they got a court order and gave 3 of them blood and two of them died. Did the blood save the childrens life? No. They went against the parents wishes and still the children died.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood because the Bible says to "abstain from blood". There are many alternatives to blood transfusion that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept.

There are going to be times that children will die. Children are given blood transfusions all the time and they die. Witness children are told they will die without a transfusion, they refuse and are still with us today.

It is a question of obeying God's laws. Doctors are not Gods.

Answer 3

I'm glad to be able to comment on this. For the record, in the Winnipeg Free Press, it said, "the transfusions made little difference in the medical state of any of the children." So not only did it make LITTLE difference, but the parents' right to choose what medical treatments they wanted for their children, was taken away from them! Note, the parents were not refusing ANY treatment, just that particular form of treatment. Those choices are made everyday by parents! For example, if you have a child with cancer, the parents must decide, do they want to do chemo, or radiation, or surgery. How would you feel if YOUR rights were taken away, and someone else decided for you what was going to happen to your child??
In addition, isn't it unbelievably ironic, that the DOCTORS suggested to these parents, 'selective abortion' before the babies were born, ultimately killing some of them, and who refused????? The PARENTS! They chose to give ALL their babies a chance.
People need to realize blood transfusions are old school and are on the way out! There are better alternatives out there that don't introduce other infections and diseases into a body that is already unwell! Do some research and you will see, that those who DON'T have blood transfusions, do much better than those who do, and are often released from hospital earlier.
But of course the most important reason to not have a blood transfusion, is because the Bible is clear that it is wrong to.
(Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:3, 4)
Jehovah's Witnesses love their children and want what is best for them! I applaud those parents and they are in my thoughts and prayers.
It boils down to this: Who knows what is best for us, God who made us, or imperfect human doctors??????

Answer 4

First of all, JWs do not like their kids to die. I believe no parents like that. JWs believe in the command in Acts 15:29 to “abstain from blood”. That means we should prevent any sort of blood (animal or human) to go IN to your body. If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused.

JWs like to have alternatives to blood transfusion. I know someone who asked two doctors in Alberta,Canada about cell saver, other blood alternative products and they said that they do not have one and those are only found in US.

The problem in BC is that the parents were not given a fair hearing which they are entitled to, I think they were not given alternatives to blood, and the government just forced and get those babies and gave them blood transfusion.

Please note, that in Canada, if the woman is pregnant, the doctors ask the parents if they want this certain kind of test to determine if the child is mentally disabled (?) , (I forgot what it is called) , and if the parents find that the babies are not healthy or disabled that they have an option to ABORT. JWs do not believe in abortion.

In BC, just before the kids were born, doctors told the JW parents to decide if they wanted the infants to have help breathing - that without resuscitation they would die.

The parents respect the sanctity of life - that's their religious views - and they chose resuscitation," said the lawyer of the JWs parents.

Now, isn’t a hypocrisy that these people, who gave options to parents to have their unborn babies to be aborted and die, once they are born will take the kids from the parents and say we are protecting the babies because they don’t want blood transfusion? They took their babies from the parents, forced the government’s will, and say “we are saving/protecting the babies”.

The parents are acting in harmony with God’s word. JWs want alternatives to blood transfusions. Unfortunately, some doctors do not respect that.


You also have to look at the Bible, and the Christian history, where Christian parents died along with their love ones, and the kids, because they never gave even a sign of worship to the emperors.

Answer 5

It is part of their belief. I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses but:

Who determines which religions shall be forced to undertake something others feel is wrong?
Should Catholics be forced to use contraceptives?
Should Baptists be forced to dance and drink alcohol?
Should Muslims be forced to eat pork?
Should atheists and agnostics be forced to join a recognized religion?
Should Jews be forced to end male circumcision?

Jehovah's Witnesses do have some valid reasons for abstaining from blood transfusions besides religious grounds, which, despite best efforts is still causing the spread of many other diseases and conditions brought about by transfusions:
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HIV, HTLV-1, CMV, HGV, Malaria
Babesiosis, Leishmaniasis, Lyme Disease, Chagas Disease - Chagas' Disease TTV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob CJD, KS and HHV-8, Toxoplasmosis Cryoglobulinemia, Bacterial Contamination of Blood Products, etc. (And you are aware where some of this blood for transfusing originates, right? Think skid row)

It is not all that much different than parents deciding their children do not need certain vacinations because many children die from innoculations required by states for school admission.

Last December, Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert inserted a provision in the Defense Appropriations bill that granted vaccine manufactures near-total immunity for injuries or deaths (even in cases of “gross negligence”) caused by their drugs.

Personally, I think it is time the state got out of the business of parenting (among other matters). Certain instances and circumstances need to be curtailed such as child abuse and child pornography but telling parent what is best for their children is stepping too far over the line, especially when religioius freedom is one of the tenets of a country.

Answer 6

Here's another prime example of the Dr's getting the government leaders to invade people's private affairs.
A couple got their daughter taken away because they wouldn't do radiation w/ chemo. When the risks of complications are worse when adding radiation.
A preg woman was at a hospital, the Dr wanted to do a c-section, she refused, so the Dr.s went to get a court order for it. She checked out and went to another hospital, and gave birth naturally 4 hrs later.
IMO this has nothing to do with JW or the Govt it the health care professionals who are trying to dictate.
I personally, probably would've oked the situation, but JW's who know they don't want this, also know of alternatives that are just as effective.

Answer 7

--Are you aware of how many deaths can be attributed to having blood transfusions, from problems of chemical shock(our blood chemistry is even more different than anyones finger prints) How about from AIDS--tainted blood, hepatitis etc.---- These deaths CAN in deed be attributed DIRECTLY from BLOOD TRANSFUSION
--These are just a few of the many medical reasons, most IMPORTANTLY is our Biblical reason!

--Are you aware in the slightest that a persons death cannot be attributed ALONE to not giving a blood transfusion UNLESS the body was bone dry??

--Are you aware that there are over 100,000 physcians, surgeons, anesthesiologist etc (world wide figure given in 2000) that are glad to operate on JW's because of the safety aspect.

--How dare you think that these parents would not die for their children?

----Why don't you talk to Jehovah's Witnesses if you are so outraged & ask them if you are so interested in finding out why we have such a respected resolve before you make such a derogatory sweeping statement.?

--The parents have every right to be outraged by the RAPING of their children with blood transfusions--what else could you call that power play by the physcians & government, who also recommended the MURDER by abortion for those children?

--DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT BIASED ON THIS MATTER?
-
--Usually when someone has a sincere question, one waits to hear the sincere and correct answers before one makes a judgement--I guess that courtesy doesn't apply to you since you already made your judgement without any knowledge!

Answer 8

For one thing, Jehovah's Witnesses are sure there is a resurrection, so she will see her children again, only as perfect human beings.

Also, remember, less than 10% of people refusing blood are JW. There was a conference here in Kansas City of reps of Blood Banks from all over the world. They were here to learn a new labeling system. Up until this year, there were no uniform labeling systems, so it was a lot easier to get a mismatch.

The ladies I had in the cab said that America is fooling itself if they thing that the blood supply is safe. In Britain, anyone under 18 cannot be given locally donated blood, due to mad cow disease. Canada is considering a similar proposal.

As for what JWs believe, just wait until May to see "Knocking" on PBS, provided that your local station is not one of them refusing to show it. Though the Society cooperated, the program was done non-JWs, independent of the group. It should be interesting to see.

The question you might ask yourself is how many non-JW children have been saved as a result of this belief?

Answer 9

It is likely that some are offended because this question is asked repeatedly here.

I am sure many of my brothers and sisters will cover the why.

I will concentrate on the why it doesn't matter. We want all possible medical treatment with the exception of blood. We will take volume expanders. Medicines that will increase the production of our own red blood cells. The machines that are similar in action to dialysis.

These parents probably gave the doctors a plethora of options. They probably brought in what we refer to as our Medical Liason Committee. These are brothers who are up to speed on all alternatives. They help explain our stand and what we will accept in place of blood.

I assure you these parents are not sitting by idly watching as their babies die.

I had a similar experience. My red blood count was a 2. 10 is where they want it. My doctor decided that because I wouldn't accept blood I could go home to die. I had filled out a Medical Directive. The medicine I preferred was Erythropoetin (sp?). The one that causes your bone marrow to produce more red blood cells faster.

My doctor did not care what I wanted. She was the medical professional so she knew more than me. She was basically signing my death warrant. And she could say to anyone who asked, "Well, she wouldn't take blood."

We got another doctor on board who was willing to work with us. I stayed in the hospital for 5 days. I got the E-po shots. I am now fine.

Answer 10

lots of the former Governing body, the architects of this prophetic interpretation are themselves useless. the hot leaders insist on protecting this pretence that the numbers will nevertheless artwork. the dreaded area is that if anybody in Bethel seems to exhibit any variety of hesitation or doubt about the prophecy, they're ‘reassigned’ this is French for procuring thrown out of Bethel and despatched someplace the position you received’t be a venture.