Here in Ontario there's been a high-profile case recently of a Jehovah's witness couple who gave birth to sextuplets. As is common in multiple births, many of the babies aren't expected to survive, but the parents are forbidding the hospital from giving life-saving blood transfusions. In the end, social workers took legal custody of them long enough to forcibly give blood transfusions, but this has only made the parents more upset.
According to the newspapers, this violates some central tenet of the Jehovah's Witness faith, some commandment in the Bible, and will cause those children to be shunned by the JW community. None of the papers that report this fact, however, go on to say WHY this could be.
Does anybody happen to know what the reason is?
2007-02-02 00:50:34 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is "a central tenet of their faith" and "has caused Jehovah's Witnesses who have had a transfusion to be shunned by their families."
Central tenet? You'd think it would be easier to look up, then!
2007-02-02 01:02:45 · update #1
Early Christians were instructed to abstain from blood and we JWs follow that instructions.
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
If a JWs get a blood transfusion, it doesn't mean that automatically he is disfellowshiped. Some JWs are forced to have blood transfusions by authorities, some because of the pressure, accepted blood transfusion. The people who decided to have blood transfusions are not shunned automatically UNLESS they UNREPENTANTLY say that they have NOT sinned by breaking the instruction in Acts 15, etc by having that procedure.
We JWs want ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusions unfortunately some doctors do not want to give those.
The news about the sextuplets is an example. The babies are forced to have blood transfusions, the parents were not heard, not even considered to be given alternatives.
Please note that doctors in Canada always give options to parents to have a test for the unborn babies to determine if the baby is mentally disabled and they are saying that they have an option to ABORT the baby. JWs do not believe in abortion.
Just before the sextuplets 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 JWs father.
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.
2007-02-02 02:37:57 · answer #1 · answered by trustdell1 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Those children will not be shunned. They had no choice in the matter. It does violate the scriptures.(Acts 15:7-among others) Of course the parents would be upset - the government forced themselves into these peoples lives and decidedly took over what they considered a bad situation. All they needed was another doctor. There's thousands of them that are more than willing to take on "bloodless" patients. By social workers taking the children away, they are saying that JW's are not fit to be parents in medical matters, when this is completely not true. The only reason they were even able to "take over" those children was because the mother had the sense to go to a hospital to have 6 kids.
Again, these are babies - it's not like they had a decision in the matter, so it's impossible for them to be "shunned" as you say. That would be likened to a child being molested and the church excomunicating the child. It doesn't happen.
2007-02-02 01:23:51 · answer #2 · answered by CHRISTINA 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Ok, there seems to be confusion over this. Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people who are forcably given blood. That's like saying you're going to throw someone in jail for getting raped. If they have made it clear they do not want transfusions for their babies, and as they are, fighting this horrible seizure of their children, of course they would not be shunned.
I would also like to correct your statement "life-saving blood transfusions." As stated in the paper, these forced blood transfusions made little difference to the improvement of the babies. It should be noted too, that the "reason" the doctors gave them blood, is because they bleed them dry doing so many tests, when they can easily take Micro-samples, thus avoiding this mayhem all-together!
These poor parents are trying to get the best medical care for their children and are being fought left and right. They are not refusing medical treatment!!!!!!! THEY JUST DON'T WANT BLOOD!!!! That is a choice parents make everyday; what treatment do they want for their child. If a child has cancer, do they want chemo, or radiation, or surgery etc. This is no different!
2007-02-02 02:58:43 · answer #3 · answered by la la la 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Jehovah's Witness' believe that blood transfusions are the same as eating blood which is a sin according to the Bible.
2007-02-02 02:08:31 · answer #4 · answered by Rudysmom 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
This questioner may be interested in learning about "the Apostolic Decree".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Decree
This decree is the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). The decree helps demonstrate that the first century Christian congregation was highly organized, and that the holy spirit actively assists those "taking the lead" to make correct decisions.
Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:
(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 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.
Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree quite plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must respect blood.
A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?
Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses certainly do not believe that any blame could be somehow transferred to unconscious or unwilling victims of forced blood transfusions.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm
2007-02-02 00:53:39 · answer #5 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, i think of they might desire to all flow to Russia, the place the Russian suitable courtroom had only governed in December that they are able to no long have any of thier e-e book exceeded out, not extra watchtower magazine or unsleeping or the different of their guides. On December 8, 2009, the suited courtroom of the Russian Federation considered the allure of a interior of reach congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and upheld the faster decrease courtroom ruling to pronounce 34 products of academic non secular literature “extremist.” The suitable courtroom skipped over the congregation’s allure. This congregation now faces “liquidation.” individuals of the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog (Rostov area) on the midsection of the case, to boot as worshippers throughout Russia and in a foreign country, are additionally deeply worried that this extreme courtroom ruling will unharness a miles better wave of non secular intolerance, even worse than the attitudes and movements already fueled by the interior of reach courtroom determination. There are seven different circumstances pending against congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses for the comparable “extremist” value positioned upon the Taganrog congregation. Now in the event that all of them flow to Russia then they could in basic terms have the Bible to earnings. you be attentive to what they are asserting approximately interpreting the Bible on my own? they might discover the genuine Jesus that way and discover out that Blood transfusions are ok in each united states of america!
2016-09-28 07:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by barile 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have been quite a few articles written about the BC case, and some have been misleading in the way they phrased certain things.
For example, in one article it states:
"The father of four surviving sextuplets vowed yesterday to prevent his newborns from having further blood transfusions to save their lives."
It could have just a seasily read:
"The father of four surviving sextuplets vowed yesterday to require his newborns alternative non-blood treatments in order to save their lives." (See first link below.)
However, some are more rational, and at least try to present both sides, such as the one at the second link below:
At the third link are several articles about our Bible Based Beliefs regarding the use and misuse of blood:
2007-02-02 01:17:33 · answer #7 · answered by Abdijah 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Acts chapter 15:20 is one place, Gen. 9:4 and Leviticus 17:11-12 states ".....No person among you may eat blood, nor may eat blood...." There's more to the verse, but that is where the belief comes from....With Acts 15:20 the prohibition was not given as a law by which Christians were to live, for the New Testament clearly teaches we are not under the law. Rather, the Jersulem Counsel was advising Gentile Chrisitans to respect their Jewish brethern by observing these practices so as not to give offense.
Gen 9:4...similar to the Lev. verse. Both refer to the eating of blood.
The JW are wrong. The prohibition here is primarily directed at eating flesh that was still pulsating with life because the lifeblood was still in it. The transfusion of blood does not involve eating the flesh.
2007-02-02 01:08:25 · answer #8 · answered by D.W. 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The prohibition was placed on all mankind according to Genesis 9:1-6.
2007-02-02 01:15:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since so many people think the KJV is the correct Bible, consider what it says:
Acts 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
It doesn't say to not eat Blood, it says to abstain from blood. It also says to abstain from fornication. Does that mean anything except oral sex someone is okay?
Abstain means just that, to abstain. Is the KJV wrong here?
2007-02-02 05:51:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋