Are Jehovah's Witnesses correct in their stance with regard to blood products?

Question

What if a child is effected?

Answer 1

If that is there belief than it is correct for them. Many hospitals are now offering an alternative for JW's, which is nice in my opinion. Would it be right for someone to say that giving last rites are incorrect? Or asking to speak to a priest? People's religious beliefs are not incorrect, its just theirs.

One last thing -- for some many people who are claiming that they can't believe in their doctrine or beliefs, no one is asking you do - but in the same respect, stop harassing people to believe in your ways because your way is the right way.

Answer 2

It's the right of anyone over 18 to take a stance or to refuse a treatment. It is the right of society to do what it knows works for anyone under 18, even if it steps on a "system of belief."

Otherwise, let's let all 9 year old girls choose to have or not have sex. Let's let all 10 year old boys choose to quit school. Let's put all 8 year olds to work in the coal mines.

We, as a majority, have decided that 18 is the cut-off point where a person can choose their own fate.

We have also decided that under 18 a child must do the reasonable things their parents want, including going to a church and learning a specific religion so long as that religion is not cruel and unsual or grossly immoral.

You can't have it both ways.

An Atheist is allowed to control their under 18 child.

A JW cannot deny their under 18 year old child life saving medical attention.

It works both ways.

It's an obligation to the young to see that they reach adulthood, at which point in time an Atheist son or daughter can become a JW or a JW son or daughter can become a Doctor or Atheist.

It is not a perfect rule, but it is a sound rule.

A parent can spank a child, but not beat them to near death.

There is a fine line.

Society has yet to condem a 16 year old to death for a crime. THAT would set a dangerous precedent.

By and large the Western World has uniformly set age 18 as a division line.

Under that line Parents and Society have an obligation.

We practise restraint. NO society has made it illegal for parents to take their kids to a nudist camp. All Western Societies have made it a crime for parents to offer their children up sexually to others.

Over it, free will.

Answer 3

Yes, primarily with regard to pleasing the Creator but also with regard to their own longevity.


Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.

As Christians, they are bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". This decree was 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 not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.

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 human purposes. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a targeted need can be addressed by a targeted treatment (only blood and the four primary components which approximate whole blood are flatly rejected; minor fractionations from plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells are not disallowed).

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 4

Yes we are.

A lot of people try to alude to the fact that the scriptures say to not 'eat' the blood - regarding idol sacrifice.
But they disregard the scripture in Acts 15:28,29 say "28 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. Good health to YOU!”

There it says to KEEP ABSTAINING from those things.

Say a doctor told you to ABSTAIN from alcohol due to your liver and kidney probem. Would you take the alcohol intreveiniously - assuming that you are not eating it? No! You would not eat, or consume it in any way for fear you will damage your health.

Besides, only 10% of the people who refuse blood transfusions are Jehovah's Witnesses. So who are the other 90%? Well, they are obviously persons who know the dangers of blood transfusions.

Hope this answered your question better.

*Edit: well, what if that child is INFECTED instead of effected. All types of diseases are in blood. That's why again, only 10% who refuse it are witnesses. The rest are obviously conscious of the hazard.

Also, God can undo anything. Even death. It's all about faith and obeying his commands.

Answer 5

They often quote Genesis where it talks about not eating blood. That referred to the practice to drain the blood of a killed animal before it was consumed. Most likely for sanitary reasons. This has nothing to do with giving human blood to someone who needs it. It's the same when they proclaimed that God did not want them to receive the polio vaccine. Well, later on, God changed his mind and then it was okay to give the vaccine.
They also quote Acts 15:29 which Chuck Smith comments on : the first thing is this thing of meats, which also was a problem in the early church. The Jew would not eat any meat of an animal that was strangled. They had their special way of killing the animal, making sure that all of the blood went out of the animal because of their respect for the blood and the life that was in the blood. And, of course, it was a part of the Mosaic law. And so they reiterated this part of the law to the Gentiles. However, Paul modified this later as he was writing to the Corinthian church.

Answer 6

i am not really sure . there is some biblical reference to this matter and its not totally off the wall for them to think this .
another thing is that although i am not one of them i do actually admire there work going door to door . i don't like the pushy ones but i have not seen one of them in a very long time.
i can also tell you i phoned the Christan reformed church in this town to ask about going there if all were allowed and what kind of clothes the men wore IE suits or what . left my number on the machine very clear . the pastor as he called himself never called me back . now that is sure not right he seems to be the exact opposite of the j witness people

Answer 7

Are you asking if Jehovah God is wrong in what he stated to his servants, Noah, Israel and the apostles?

So what if we are not correct in our stance on blood products? Is there anything bad to come out of it? In this system we live in, people live and then they die, it is better to be obedient to Jehovah and his commandments and be known as one faithful.

Answer 8

Yes, they are.

And in response to one of the answerers above, that's true, but abstaining from blood is a teaching that persisted in the NT. (Read Acts 15:20,29)

We are not however required to avoid meat.

Answer 9

the scripture they use to justify this belief is in Leviticus 7 & clearly states that blood is not to be used for food--I don't see how this connects to not receiving blood transfusions, but other sects have taken another scripture about not making cuts or mark in your flesh to honor the dead & turned THAT into a prohibition against having surgery, so it's just another example of taking scripture out of context & making a doctrine out of it.

Answer 10

Why not go to our site and get the facts instead of asking opinionated people who have an ax to grind?
We approach all reasoning with how God feels about the subject. it is him we serve, not man.