How Christians contradict to the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses ?

Question

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there should no birthday celebration nor blood transfusion. Please answer

I mean As a Christian how will you answer this if Jehovah Witness asks you that birthdays and blood transfusion are not in the Bible. So it should not be practiced..how will you handle it?

Answer 1

The premise of this question is flawed.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bible to teach that Christians must preach the "good news of God's Kingdom"; this means that Witnesses share the bible's central message during their person-to-person ministry. Neither birthdays nor blood transfusions are central to the good news of God's Kingdom, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not work to draw non-Witnesses into discussions on these topics.

Also, each Witness already knows what the bible teaches about birthdays and respect for blood. Witnesses are uninterested in discussing worldly philosophy or human traditions, so they would prefer to focus on bible topics, and especially on the "good news of God's Kingdom".

(Matthew 24:14) And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations

(Luke 9:6) They went through the territory from village to village, declaring the good news

(Acts 5:42) Every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.

Answer 2

It is the other way around. JW's contradict what the Bible says about these things. It is based on a couple ideas - creature worship is where they class anniversaries and birthdays. There is no verse saying not to celebrate birthdays. If it is done in a fashion that doesn't contradict other commands, it is not a problem.
Blood transfusions are another issue- this arises because of a misinterpretation of the commands to abstain from eating blood.
bcmmin.org
macgregorministries.org

Answer 3

The bible only mentions two birthday celebrations in the bible. One is Pharaoh's birthday and the other was Herod's. The bible puts a bad light on both occasions. No one who was a servant of God throughout the entire bible ever celebrated their birthday. Even the birth of Jesus was not celebrated by the so- called "wise men" as some claim. They brought gifts to pay homage to the new "king of the Jews"(Matthew 2:2), not to celebrate his birthday. Besides, the bible shows that these "wise men" arrived some time AFTER Jesus was born (verse 11). It says they enter the HOUSE, not manger (Luke 2:7).
Modern medicine is proving that blood transfusions are not only not as necessary as once believed, but that the risks involved in accepting one may outweigh the perceived benefits. From the bible's standpoint, however, one must abstain from blood, even down to making sure we bleed and properly cook animals we intend to eat (Acts 15:28-29). God views blood as sacred (Leviticus 17:11&14). Generally everyone thinks we're crazy for not wanting transfusions in a life- threatening situation, but displeasing God to save our own skins is far more frightening and crazy to us than to lose our lives now with the hope of a resurrection! (Acts 24:15)
Oh, and jimmyd- my kids have friends over all the time for ice cream or cake or brownies or my famous chocolate chip cookies, purely out of love and not out of obligation because it's a "certain day". In fact, they get to do it more than once a year, so I seriously doubt they're missing out on anything!

Answer 4

Most folks consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians. But they are the only Christian denomination (to my knowledge) who rejects birthday celebrations and blood transfusions.

Answer 5

I find it strange that people accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of not being Christian when Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who are consistently doing the work that Jesus assigned to his followers at Matt. 28:19, 20: "Go and make disciples of people of all the nations...teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. How many "Christian" denominations do that? Can you name any who are as involved in the preaching work as Jehovah's Witnesses? Most "Christians" prefer to go to church on Sundays and hire a professional clergyman to do the preaching for them.

How many "Christian" churches abstain from celebrating pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter?

How many "Christian" churches reject the cross as a pagan symbol that predates Christianity by thousands of years?

How many "Christians" refuse to go to war and slaughter their fellow man?

Jehovah's Witnesses do everything by the book (the Bible). They do not accept blood transfusions because that would violate Acts 15:29 to "abstain from blood."

Answer 6

First of all Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. They do believe in Christ. However, they also believe that things such as Birthday celebrations, and having Christmas Trees are forms of idolotry. Blood transfusions are a no-no as you should abstain from blood. Personally, I'll take the scientifically PROVEN methodology called - medical care. Would you let your child bleed to death!

I would like to know what psycological impact that has on their kids who can't enjoy being kids! No birthday party with their friends from school, no cake.....no wonder they come door to door at dinner time. The parents got nothing to do at home!

P.S. All Jehovah's Witnesses....God O.K.'s taking care of yourself!

Danni d_21....thanks for using up a GIG of text on your 'Iliad and The Odessey' length explanation!!!!

Answer 7

No there is no contradiction. Jehovah's Witnesses tell one story, other Christians tell another story.
That is all there is to it.

Answer 8

Jesus saves everyone who comes to Him and repents, not just a few randomly chosen.

Answer 9

What?? are you medicated or something? what exactly are you asking???
~GOD BLESS YOU AND LEAD YOU INTO HIS PERFECT LOVE THRU CHRIST JESUS MY LORD AMEN~

Answer 10

Are you asking why Witnesses don't celebrate birthdays or partake in blood transfusions? Because if so, I've got the answer! :D

Birthdays:
The only two birthday celebrations spoken of in the Bible were held by persons who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 40:20-22; Mark 6:21, 22, 24-27) The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays. The custom of celebrating birthdays comes from ancient false religions. True Christians give gifts and have good times together at other times during the year.
As even Jesus mentioned, among God’s people childbirth was a blessed, happy event. (Luke 1:57, 58; 2:9-14; John 16:21) Yet, Jehovah’s people did not memorialize the date of birth; they kept other anniversaries but not birthdays. (John 10:22, 23) Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual.” Customs and Traditions of Israel observes: “The celebration of birthdays has been borrowed from the practices of other nations, as no mention is made of this custom among Jews either in The Bible, Talmud, or writings of the later Sages. In fact, it was an ancient Egyptian custom.”

That Egyptian connection is clear from a birthday celebration related in the Bible, one that true worshipers were not observing. It was the birthday feast of the Pharaoh who ruled while Joseph was in an Egyptian prison. Some of those pagans may have been happy over the feast, yet the birthday was linked to the beheading of the chief of Pharaoh’s bakers.—Genesis 40:1-22.

A similar unfavorable light is shed on the other birthday celebration described in the Scriptures—that of Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. This birthday celebration is hardly presented in the Bible as just innocent festivity. Rather, it occasioned the beheading of John the Baptizer. Then, “his disciples came up and removed the corpse and buried him and came and reported to Jesus,” who ‘withdrew from there into a lonely place for isolation.’ (Matthew 14:6-13) Do you imagine that those disciples or Jesus felt drawn to the practice of birthday celebrations?

Given the known origin of celebrating birthdays, and more important, the unfavorable light in which they are presented in the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses have ample reason to abstain from the practice. They do not need to follow this worldly custom, for they can and do have happy meals any time during the year. Their gift giving is not obligatory or under the pressure of a party; it is spontaneous sharing of gifts at any time out of generosity and genuine affection.—Proverbs 17:8; Ecclesiastes 2:24; Luke 6:38; Acts 9:36, 39; 1 Corinthians 16:2, 3.

Blood transfusions:
Jehovah’s Witnesses cherish and deeply respect life. This is one of the reasons why they do not smoke, use addictive drugs or seek abortions. They have learned from the Bible to view life as sacred, something to be protected and preserved both for themselves and for their children.

Why, then, do Jehovah’s Witnesses object to blood transfusions? Is there some rational basis for this conviction that they hold to even in the face of death? And is their position on the matter totally incompatible with modern medical knowledge and principles?

Even individuals who do not personally view the Bible to be the inspired word of God must acknowledge that it has much to say about blood. From the first book of the Bible through to the last, “blood” is mentioned more than four hundred times. Certain Bible verses are especially pertinent to the question of sustaining life with blood. Let us briefly examine them:

10 The Bible record shows that early in mankind’s history the Creator and Life-Giver expressed himself on the issue of blood. Right after the global flood, when God first granted humans the right to eat animal flesh, he commanded Noah and his family: “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—its blood—you must not eat.”—Genesis 9:3, 4.

11 First of all, the Creator was providing a dietary regulation at a time when mankind was making a new start. (Compare Genesis 1:29.) God showed, however, that in killing animals for food more was involved than diet. That was because the blood of a creature represented its life or its soul. Thus, some Bible translations render Genesis 9:4 as: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”—Revised Standard Version; Moffatt.

12 So this divine regulation was not merely a restriction on diet, such as a doctor’s advising a patient to avoid salt or fat. The Creator attached a highly important moral principle to blood. In pouring out all the blood that reasonably could be drained out, Noah and his descendants would manifest their regard for the fact that life was from and depended upon the Creator. But let us examine this matter further.

13 The above-quoted scripture applies to animal blood. Would the same principle apply to human blood? Yes, with even stronger force. For God went on to say to Noah: “Besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. . . . Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” (Genesis 9:5, 6) Now, if animal blood (representing animal life) was of sacred significance to God, obviously human blood had a sacred significance of even greater value. Persons complying with these divine directions would not be shedding the blood of (killing) humans, nor would they be eating either animal or human blood.

However, was this command to Noah only a limited or temporary restriction? Does it have a bearing on later generations, including ours?

14 Many Bible scholars recognize that God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on—actually all those living since the Flood are from Noah’s family. (Genesis 10:32) Theologian and Reformationist John Calvin, for example, acknowledged about the prohibition on blood that “this law had been given to the whole world immediately after the flood.”2 And Gerhard von Rad, professor at Heidelberg University, refers to Genesis 9:3, 4, as “an ordinance for all mankind,” because all mankind has descended from Noah.3

15 Since the law on blood was linked with God’s pronouncement that emphasized a high regard for human life, we can appreciate the observations of Rabbi Benno Jacob:

“Thus the two prohibitions belong together. They are the most elementary demands of humanity in the literal sense of the word. . . . The permission to eat meat, but without its blood, and the prohibition against shedding human blood indicate the place of man within the world of the living . . . In summary: the reason for the prohibition of blood is of a moral character. . . . Later Judaism regarded this passage as establishing fundamental ethics for every human being.” (Italics added.)4

In fact, later Jews drew from the early part of Genesis seven “basic laws” for mankind, and this command to Noah and his sons about blood was one of them.5 Yes, despite the fact that most nations did not follow it, this was actually a law for all mankind.—Acts 14:16; 17:30, 31.

16 Later in his law given to the nation of Israel, Jehovah God prohibited murder, bearing out that the mandate he had given to Noah was still in effect. (Exodus 20:13) Correspondingly, God also forbade consuming blood, saying:

“As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in their midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.”—Leviticus 17:10.

17 The Israelites were allowed to use animal blood only in one way. That was in offering it up as a sacrifice to God, acknowledging him as the Life-Giver to whom they were indebted. He told them: “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 [or life] in it.”—Leviticus 17:11.

18 How about the blood of animals killed for food, not for sacrifice? God told his worshipers that a hunter who caught a wild beast or fowl “must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’”—Leviticus 17:13, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23-25.

19 This pouring out of the blood was not simply a religious ritual; it actually was an extension of the divine law given to Noah. When killing an animal, a person should recognize that its life comes from and belongs to God. By not eating the blood, but ‘pouring it out’ on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.

20 For an Israelite to show disregard for life as represented by the blood was viewed as a most serious wrong. The person deliberately disregarding this law about blood was to be “cut off,” executed. (Leviticus 7:26, 27; Numbers 15:30, 31) A measure of guilt resulted even from eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast.—Leviticus 17:15, 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; 11:39.

Could God’s law on blood be set aside in times of emergency?

21 The Bible answers, No. There was no special dispensation for times of stress. We can see this from what occurred with some soldiers of Israel in the days of King Saul. Famished after a long battle, they slaughtered sheep and cattle and “fell to eating along with the blood.” They were hungry and were not deliberately eating blood, but in their haste to eat the meat they did not see to it that the animals were properly bled. Did the fact that this seemed to be an “emergency” excuse their course? On the contrary, their God-appointed king recognized their action as ‘sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.’—1 Samuel 14:31-35.

Does this proper aversion to blood apply to human blood also?

22 Yes. And that is altogether understandable for God’s law prohibited consuming “any sort of blood,” “the blood of any sort of flesh.” (Leviticus 17:10, 14) We can see how the Jewish nation regarded this law by considering an incident involving some of the Jews who had followed and listened to Jesus. On one occasion he spoke figuratively about ‘drinking his blood,’ for he knew that in time his blood must be poured out in a sacrificial death and that it would result in life to those who, by faith, accepted his sacrifice. (John 6:53-58) Evidently not realizing that Jesus was speaking symbolically, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked over his words and left off following him. (John 6:60-66) Yes, the thought of taking in human blood was absolutely abhorrent to those Jewish worshipers of God.

What About Christians?

23 The Mosaic law pointed to the coming and sacrificial death of the Messiah. Hence, after Jesus died, true worshipers were no longer obliged to keep the Mosaic law. (Romans 10:4; 6:14; Colossians 2:13, 14) Dietary restrictions of the Law, such as those against eating fat or the flesh of certain animals, were no longer binding.—Leviticus 7:25; 11:2-8.

So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?

24 This matter came up for discussion in 49 C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians. The conference was held in response to a question about circumcision. This apostolic council decided that non-Jews who accepted Christianity did not have to get circumcised. During the discussion Jesus’ half brother James brought to the council’s attention certain other essential things that he deemed important to include in their decision, namely, “to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21) He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood.—Genesis 9:3, 4; 19:1-25; 34:31; 35:2-4.

25 The decision of the council was sent by letter to the Christian congregations. It is now included in the Bible as part of the inspired Scriptures that are beneficial “for teaching, . . . for setting things straight.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The decision was:

26 “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 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.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

27 Yes, even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was “necessary” that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit.

28 Concerning that Christian decree, Professor Walther Zimmerli, of the University of Göttingen, Germany, commented:

“The first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given [through] Noah to all the world.”—Zürcher Bibelkommentare.6

29 The command to ‘abstain from blood’ was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as ‘abstaining from idolatry or fornication.’

The Early Christians and Blood

30 The Jerusalem council sent this clear-cut decision to the Christian congregations, with positive results. We read in Acts chapter 16 concerning Paul and his associates: “As they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.”—Acts 16:4, 5.

Was the decision recorded in Acts 15:28, 29 merely a temporary requirement, not an obligation that continued to rest on Christians?

31 Some persons have held that the apostolic decree was not a permanent obligation for Christians. But the book of Acts clearly indicates otherwise. It shows that, about ten years after the Jerusalem council issued that decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Acts 21:25) This shows that they were aware that the requirement to abstain from blood was not limited to Gentile converts in one area nor applicable for just a brief period.

32 But what was the situation in later centuries when Christianity spread into distant places? Let us consider the evidence from the centuries following the publishing of the decree recorded in Acts 15:28, 29.

33 Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the “father of Church history,” relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177 C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: “How can we eat infants—we, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.”7

34 Similar false charges moved the early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) to point out that though Romans commonly drank blood, Christians certainly did not. He writes:

“Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”8

35 Also, referring to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29, he says: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be [an interdict] much more upon human blood.”9

36 Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., makes the same point, writing: “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”10

37 The historical evidence is so abundant and clear that Bishop John Kaye (1783-1853) could state categorically: “The Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.”11

But are the ‘primitive Christians’ and Jehovah’s Witnesses in modern times the only ones to have taken such a view based on the Bible?

38 Not at all. Commenting on Acts 15:29, Catholic Biblical scholar Giuseppe Ricciotti (1890-1964) refers to the incident at Lyons (described previously) as evidence that early ‘Christians could not eat blood.’ Then he adds, “but even in succeeding centuries down to the Middle Ages, we encounter unexpected echoes of this early ‘abomination’ [of blood], due unquestionably to the decree.”12

39 For instance, the Quinisext Council held in 692 C.E. at Constantinople stated: “The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. . . . If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.”13 Similarly, Otto of Bamberg (c. 1060-1139 C.E.), a noted prelate and evangelist, explained to converts in Pomerania “that they should not eat any thing unclean, or which died of itself, or was strangled, or sacrificed to idols, or the blood of animals.”14

40 Moving closer to our time, Martin Luther also recognized the implications of the decree of 49 C.E. In protesting Catholic practices and beliefs he was inclined to group the apostolic council with later church councils whose decrees were not part of the Bible. Still, Luther wrote regarding Acts 15:28, 29:

“Now if we want to have a church that conforms to this council (as is right, since it is the first and foremost council, and was held by the apostles themselves), we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood . . . And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage.”15

41 In the nineteenth century Andrew Fuller, viewed as “perhaps the most eminent and influential of Baptist theologians,” wrote concerning the Genesis 9:3, 4 prohibition on blood:

“This, being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind; nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians by the decrees of the apostles, Acts XV. 20. . . . Blood is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself.”16

42 Might a Christian claim that the exercise of what some call “Christian liberty” should allow him to ignore this prohibition on blood? In his book The History of the Christian Church, clergyman William Jones (1762-1846) replies:

“Nothing can be more express than the prohibition, Acts XV. 28, 29. Can those who plead their ‘Christian liberty’ in regard to this matter point us to any part of the Word of God in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, ‘By what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?’”—P. 106.

43 The conclusion is plain: Under the guidance of the holy spirit the apostolic council decreed that Christians who want God’s approval must ‘abstain from blood,’ as God has required since the days of Noah. (Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:3, 4) This Scriptural view was accepted and followed by the early Christians, even when doing so would cost them their lives. And down through the centuries this requirement has been recognized as “necessary” for Christians. Thus the determination of Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood is based on God’s Word the Bible and is backed up by many precedents in the history of Christianity.

Blood as Medicine

44 Up to this point we have established that the Bible requires the following: A human is not to sustain his life with the blood of another creature. (Genesis 9:3, 4) When an animal’s life is taken, the blood representing that life is to be ‘poured out,’ given back to the Life-Giver. (Leviticus 17:13, 14) And as decreed by the apostolic council, Christians are to ‘abstain from blood,’ which applies to human blood as well as to animal blood.—Acts 15:28, 29.

Do these Biblical statements, however, apply to the acceptance of transfused blood as a life-saving medical procedure?

45 Some persons contend that the Bible forbids the eating of blood as a food and that this is fundamentally different from accepting a blood transfusion, a medical procedure that was not known in Bible times. Is that position valid?

46 There is no denying that in Bible times God’s law had particular application to consuming blood as food. Intravenous administration of blood was not then practiced. But, even though the Bible did not directly discuss modern medical techniques involving blood, it did in fact anticipate and cover these in principle.

47 Note, for example, the command that Christians “keep abstaining . . . from blood.” (Acts 15:29) Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?

48 Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes. Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person’s muscles or circulatory system (intravenously). What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether. Similarly, the decree that Christians must ‘abstain from blood’ clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream.

How important is this issue to Jehovah’s Witnesses?

49 Persons who recognize their dependence on the Creator and Life-Giver should be determined to obey his commands. This is the firm position that Jehovah’s Witnesses take. They are fully convinced that it is right to comply with God’s law commanding abstention from blood. In this they are not following a personal whim or some baseless fanatical view. It is out of obedience to the highest authority in the universe, the Creator of life, that they refuse to take blood into their systems either by eating or by transfusion.

50 The issue of blood for Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives. Their relationship with their Creator and God is at stake. Furthermore, they wholeheartedly believe the psalmist’s words: “The judicial decisions of Jehovah are true; they have proved altogether righteous. . . . In the keeping of them there is a large reward.”—Psalm 19:9, 11.

51 Some persons who look just at the short-term effect of decisions might doubt that obeying God’s law about blood can be considered ‘rewarding.’ But Jehovah’s Witnesses are sure that obeying the directions from their Creator is for their lasting good.

52 The early Christians felt the same. History shows that their obedience to God was sometimes tested to the limit. In the Roman Empire they were put under pressure to perform acts of idolatry or to engage in immorality. Their refusal to give in could mean being thrown into the Roman arena to be torn apart by vicious animals. But those Christians stuck to their faith; they obeyed God.

53 Think what that involved. For the early Christians who were parents, refusal to break God’s law might even bring death upon their children. Yet we know from history that those Christians did not fearfully and faithlessly turn their back on God and the principles by which they lived. They believed Jesus’ words: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life.” (John 11:25) Hence, despite the immediate cost, those Christians obeyed the apostolic decree to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from fornication and from blood. Faithfulness to God meant that much to them.

54 Today it means that much to Jehovah’s Witnesses also. They rightly feel a moral obligation to make decisions about worship for themselves and for their children. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not looking for anyone else, whether a doctor, a hospital administrator or a judge, to make these moral decisions for them. They do not want someone else to try to shoulder their responsibility to God, for in reality no other person can do that. It is a personal responsibility of the Christian toward his God and Life-Giver.

Is Refusal a Form of Suicide?

55 In the face of massive blood loss from injury, disease or surgical complications, blood transfusions have often been administered in an attempt to preserve life. Hence, when persons hear that someone refuses a blood transfusion, they may feel that he is in effect taking his own life. Is that so?

Is it “suicide” or exercising one’s “right to die” to refuse a blood transfusion?

56 Suicide is a seeking to take one’s own life. It is an attempt at self-destruction. But anyone even casually acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses can see that they are not attempting self-destruction. Though they refuse blood transfusions, they welcome alternative medical assistance. An article in The American Surgeon correctly commented:

“In general, refusing medical care is not tantamount to ‘suicide.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses seek medical attention but refuse only one facet of medical care. Refusal of medical care or parts thereof is not a ‘crime’ committed on oneself by an overt act of the individual to destroy, as is suicide.” (Italics added.)17

Professor Robert M. Byrn pointed out in the Fordham Law Review that ‘rejecting lifesaving therapy and attempted suicide are as different in law as apples and oranges.’18 And, addressing a medical conference, Dr. David Pent of Arizona observed:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that, should they die because of their refusal to receive a blood transfusion, they are dying for their beliefs in much the same way that the early religious martyrs did centuries ago. If this is passive medical suicide, there are several physicians in the audience right now who are smoking cigarettes, and that probably constitutes just as passive a suicide.”19

57 What about the idea that in refusing transfusions Jehovah’s Witnesses are exercising a “right to die”? The fact is that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to stay alive. That is why they seek medical help. But they cannot and will not violate their deep-seated and Bible-based religious convictions.

58 Courts of justice have often upheld the principle that each individual has a right to bodily integrity, meaning that in the final analysis a person himself is responsible to decide what will be done to his body. Really, is that not how you would want it to be if you were ill or hospitalized? Since it is your life, your health and your body, should you not have the final voice about whether something will be done to you or not?

59 There are logical consequences of this intelligent and moral view. A booklet produced by the American Medical Association explains: “The patient must be the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it. Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes.” “A patient has the right to withhold his consent to lifesaving treatment. Accordingly, he can impose such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may desire upon his consent.”20

60 That is true regarding blood transfusion just as much as with any other “lifesaving treatment.” Dr. jur. H. Narr of Tübingen, Germany, stated: “The right and the duty of the physician to heal is limited by man’s basic freedom of self-determination respecting his own body. . . . The same is true for other medical intervention, hence also for refusal of blood transfusion.”21

61 Understandably, some persons are shocked at the thought of anyone’s refusing blood if doing so could be dangerous or even fatal. Many feel that life is the foremost thing, that life is to be preserved at all costs. True, preservation of human life is one of society’s most important interests. But should this mean that “preserving life” comes before any and all principles?

62 In answer, Norman L. Cantor, Associate Professor at Rutgers Law School, pointed out:

“Human dignity is enhanced by permitting the individual to determine for himself what beliefs are worth dying for. Through the ages, a multitude of noble causes, religious and secular, have been regarded as worthy of self-sacrifice. Certainly, most governments and societies, our own included, do not consider the sanctity of life to be the supreme value.”22

Mr. Cantor gave as an example the fact that during wars some men willingly faced injury and death in fighting for “freedom” or “democracy.” Did their countrymen view such sacrifices for the sake of principle to be morally wrong? Did their nations condemn this course as ignoble, since some of those who died left behind widows or orphans needing care? Do you feel that lawyers or doctors should have sought court orders to prevent these men from making sacrifices in behalf of their ideals? Hence, is it not obvious that willingness to accept dangers for the sake of principle is not unique with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the early Christians? The fact is that such allegiance to principle has been highly regarded by many persons.

63 Also, it is worthy of reemphasis that, although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions, they welcome alternative treatments that may help to keep them alive. Why, then, should anyone else insist on and even force a certain therapy that totally violates a person’s principles and profoundest religious beliefs?

64 Yet that has occurred. Some doctors or hospital administrators have even turned to the courts for legal authorization to force blood on an individual. Concerning those who have followed this course, Dr. D. N. Goldstein wrote in The Wisconsin Medical Journal:

“Doctors taking this position have denied the sacrifices of all the martyrs that have glorified history with their supreme devotion to principle even at the expense of their own lives. For those patients who choose certain death rather than violate a religious scruple are of the same stuff as those who paid with their lives for faith in God or who went to the stake rather than accept [forced] baptism. . . . Ours is the duty to save life but we may well question whether we do not also have a duty to safeguard integrity and preserve the few gestures of personal authenticity that continue to occur in an increasingly regimented society. . . . No doctor should seek legal assistance to save a body by destroying a soul. The patient’s life is his own.”23

The Doctor’s Role

65 We have seen that, because of their strong religious beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid both food that contains blood and medically administered blood. But how are others affected by this stand, such as doctors who treat Witness patients?

66 Doctors are dedicated to saving or prolonging life. That is their profession. Consequently, when a doctor schooled to view blood transfusion as standard practice is treating a patient who is seriously ill or who has lost much blood, he may find it distressing to learn that the patient refuses blood. Whereas the patient’s Bible-trained conscience may not permit a blood transfusion, the physician, too, has a conscience and follows ethics that are extremely important to him.

Should a doctor follow his own medical training and convictions if he feels that a blood transfusion, though refused by the patient, is needed to save that one’s life?

67 There is no question that in such cases a delicate situation exists. But each of us can ask: If I were in a situation where there was a conflict between my conscience as a patient and the sincere conviction of an attending physician, what course would I think ought to be followed? Consider the remarks made by Dr. William P. Williamson at the First National Congress on Medical Ethics and Professionalism:

“Certainly, the physician’s first thought must be the welfare of the patient. Since life is a gift of the Creator to the individual, the primary decision rightfully belongs to the patient, because the patient is the custodian of that gift. . . . The physician should treat the patient within the dictates of the patient’s religion, and not force his own religious convictions upon the patient.” (Italics added.)24

68 There is another reason, a legal one, why the patient’s conscience must not be overridden. As Professor Byrn wrote in Fordham Law Review: “ . . . I do not mean that the doctor is bound by the patient’s choice to do something contrary to the doctor’s conscience. . . . I do mean that the patient is not bound by the doctor’s conscience to do something contrary to the patient’s choice, and consequently the doctor may have the right and choice to do nothing. The law of informed consent would be rendered meaningless if patient choice were subservient to conscientious medical judgment.” (Italics added.)25

69 The possibility exists of a physician in this situation ‘doing nothing,’ that is, withdrawing from the case; but is that the only alternative? In his article “Emergency Surgical Procedures in Adult Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Dr. Robert D. O’Malley commented: “The patient’s refusal to accept blood transfusion should not be used as an excuse for abandonment by the medical profession.”26

70 What, then, could a doctor do? Dr. J. K. Holcomb stated in a medical journal editorial:

“No doubt, we, as physicians, feel frustrated, even angered, when an obstinate patient refuses to accept what we would consider the preferred regimen of therapy. But, should we honestly feel this way when the patient cites a religious belief as the basis for his reluctance to accept specific treatment? If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we settle for something less than ideal treatment with many patients in our day-to-day practice. . . . If we can do this with respect to our medical convictions, shouldn’t we likewise be willing to do the best we can when a patient’s convictions, particularly religious ones, prevent our offering what we would consider the desired form of therapy. Usually, patients having religious reasons for not accepting blood transfusions, etc. are aware of the medical risks involved in their decision, but are willing to accept those risks and ask only that we do our best.”27

71 There is another consideration as to the moral aspect of the matter. John J. Paris, Assistant Professor of Social Ethics, pointed out: “There is great consensus in both the medical and moral communities that an individual has no moral obligation to undergo ‘extraordinary’ medical treatment. And if the patient has no moral obligation to undergo ‘extraordinary’ treatment—common though it might be in regular practice—neither has the physician any moral obligation to provide it; nor the judge to order it.”28 For Jehovah’s Witnesses, who direct their lives by the Bible, blood transfusions certainly are “extraordinary” treatment. In fact, they are morally forbidden.