why does the religion jehovah's witnesses not believe in blood tranfusions..........?

Question

especially when their children need it. please help me to understand this.

Answer 1

The Bible says to abstain from blood. I'm sure many of the other JW posters will give you the ins and outs of the belief.

What I would like to focus on, is that we want all possible medical care. We simply refuse blood transfusions. I had the experience of refusing a blood transfusion. My red cell count was a 2. 10 is where they want you.

I had done my research and before going to the hospital I filled out a Medical Directive. I gave the doctor and hospital each a copy explaining the 3-4 options I would be willing to use instead of blood JUST IN CASE it became an issue.

My doctor was like many here who think we would rather die or let our babies die then get treatment. So she was going to send me home with Iron pills. My mother had a fit and asked her why she would send me home. My doctor said if she wants to die she can do it at home, not here.

I tried to get my doctor to pull my Medical Directive from my chart. She refused. We called in a Brother from the Medical Liason Committee who was specifically trained to help explain our stand and the alternatives we would accept. She refused to speak with him.

Finally, after getting another doctor on board, I was able to stay in the hospital. I stayed a total of five days. I was give erythropoetin (sp?). A medicine commonly given to cancer patients with anemia. It makes your bone marrow make red blood cells at a faster rate.

I was a 2. Now, I am fine. There is no guarantee the blood transfusion would have made my experience better. There is, however, a guarantee that my doctors bullheadedness would have killed me. Then she could have told everyone. See, if she had just had a blood transfusion.

Answer 2

The commandment for Gentiles is abstain from fornication, from things strangelsed, from blood, and from things sacrificed to idols.

Modern methods are modern methods, why was not such available for Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel, the Promised Land Judges, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, the 18 Judah kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and after 70 years, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, haggai. Zechariah and Malachi.
O.T. 39 books 1110 years, done 443 before Christ, N.T. 27 books done 50 to 100 after Christ, KJV Bible 1611, at 303 years is 1914 after Christ at WW1 and an excepted translation by law of man and God, and first blood transfusions for war victims against the Gentile commandment in the end time days when world is whole to have WW2.

Answer 3

How strenuously should a Christian resist a blood transfusion that has been ordered or authorized by a court?

Each situation is unique, so there is no all-inclusive rule on this. Christians are known for respectfully ‘paying back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ obeying the laws of the secular government. Yet, they realize that their overriding obligation is to render “God’s things to God,” not violating his law.—Mark 12:17.

Romans 13:1-7 discusses the relationship of Christians to the governmental “superior authorities.” Such governments have the authority to enact laws or to issue directions, usually to promote the general welfare of the populace. And governments ‘bear the sword’ to enforce their laws and ‘to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad according to their laws.’ Being subject to the superior authorities, Christians desire to obey laws and court decrees, but this subjection must be relative. If a Christian is asked to submit to something that would be a violation of God’s higher law, the divine law comes first; it takes precedence.

Some modern laws that are basically good may be misapplied to authorize the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian. In this case Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.

Jehovah commanded the Israelites: “Be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh.” (Deuteronomy 12:23) A Jewish Bible translation of 1917 reads: “Only be stedfast in not eating the blood.” And Isaac Leeser rendered the verse: “Only be firm so as not to eat the blood.” Does that sound as if God’s servants were to be casual or passive about upholding his law?

With good reason Christians have been absolutely determined to obey God, even if a government directed them otherwise. Professor Robert L. Wilken writes: “Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the governing of the cities.” (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them) Refusal could mean being branded lawbreakers or being condemned to the Roman arena.

Christians today must also be steadfast, firmly resolved not to violate divine law, even if that puts them in some jeopardy as to secular governments. The highest law of the universe—God’s law—requires that Christians abstain from blood, just as they are commanded to avoid fornication (sexual immorality). The Bible calls these prohibitions “necessary things.” (Acts 15:19-21, 28, 29) Such divine law is not to be taken lightly, as something to be obeyed only if it is convenient or presents no problems. God’s law must be obeyed!

We can appreciate, then, why the young Christian mentioned on page 17 told a court that “she considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape.” Would any Christian woman, young or old, passively submit to rape, even if there were a legal grant that the fornication by sexual assault be carried out?

Similarly, the 12-year-old quoted on the same page left no doubt that ‘she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed.’ She was firmly resolved to obey the divine law.

Jesus withdrew from the area when a crowd wanted to make him king. Similarly, if a court-authorized transfusion seemed likely, a Christian might choose to avoid being accessible for such a violation of God’s law. (Matthew 10:16; John 6:15) At the same time, a Christian should wisely seek alternative medical treatment, thus making a genuine effort to maintain life and to regain full health.

If a Christian did put forth very strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God’s law on blood, authorities might consider him a lawbreaker or make him liable to prosecution. If punishment did result, the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness. (Compare 1 Peter 2:18-20.) But in most cases, Christians have avoided transfusions and with competent medical care have recovered, so that no lasting legal problems resulted. And most important, they have maintained their integrity to their Divine Life-Giver and Judge.

Answer 4

JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept others ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.
The Israelites, who ate blood, were cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.


Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e., to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which REFLECTS the original instructions in Acts 15:29. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus’ slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect.

Have you noticed the difference of Acts 15:29 & Gen 9:4? Gen 9:4 was specific (do not EAT blood) while Acts 15:29 was general (ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD) . Why do you think Acts 15:29 has become a “general” instruction instead of being “specific” instruction? Instead of stating “abstain from EATING/Drinking blood” or “abstain from blood shed in death” it only stated an all encompassing instruction “abstain from blood”?


If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?


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.

In short, we want our kids to have alternatives to blood transfusion and those alternatives have been proven to save lives as well. Some doctors are now giving nonblood alternatives, unfortunately some don't want to do that. That's when the problem arises.

Answer 5

Because mistakes happen. Especially in translation and interpretation.