English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wouldn't it be impossible to accept the organ of someone else, without also receiving some of their blood within and on the organ. Can a JW explain why the two are judged differently? Both procedures save lives. Just curious. Thanks

2007-04-08 06:06:14 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Edit: That should be "transfusions".

2007-04-08 06:11:43 · update #1

How "are" the two different?

2007-04-08 06:21:25 · update #2

10 answers

It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who decide that blood is sacred, or who decide that other body parts are not specifically declared "sacred". It is Almighty God who declares it so, as the Divine Author of the Holy Bible!

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". Ironically, 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). God and Christ apparently felt (and feel) that respect for blood is quite important.

As God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood.

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 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 any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells.

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

2007-04-10 08:24:33 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 3 6

Not all JWs will have organ transplants. It is a gray area, meaning that some JWs think that it is wrong since there is residual blood and some think that it might be okay depending on what is transplanted...say a cornea. It can be a matter of conscience based on if the JW thinks it is right/wrong. Blood is considered to carry the lifeforce, and therefore, JWs refrain from eating/having blood transfusions. Organ transplants are not referenced in the bible and are outside of this reasoning.

Here is the watchtower.org reference:
When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant. Even blood that has been "properly" cross matched can suppress the immune system. At a conference of pathologists, the point was made that hundreds of medical papers "have linked blood transfusions to immunologic responses."—"Case Builds Against Transfusions," Medical World News, December 11, 1989.

Here are their articles for their viewpoint
http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_02.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/1/8/article_01.htm

2007-04-08 06:08:59 · answer #2 · answered by Myra 4 · 5 2

Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood with it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether—to him—the bone-marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or would be unbled tissue. Additionally, since a marrow graft is a form of transplant, the Scriptural aspects of human organ transplants should be considered. See “Questions From Readers” in our issue of March 15, 1980. Finally, writing in Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Update I, 1981, page 138), Dr. D. E. Thomas observes that “virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions” and many are given “packed red blood cells.” So the Christian should consider what additional issues he would have to face if he submitted to a marrow transplant.—Proverbs 22:3. Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible’s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide. Sorry for the cut and paste

2016-05-20 00:19:21 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Organ transplants are not explicitly banned in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say abstain from the heart, or the lungs, etc. It is a personal decision to have organ transplant or not.
Properly bled meat has still some blood in it but God doesn’t prohibit the eating of meat. Jehovah God doesn’t say that every single drop of blood or 100% of blood be taken from the meat. Organ transplants are the same, if a Christian feels that his Bible trained conscience is bothered by organ transplants because it has some blood in it he can choose not to have the procedure if needed.

This is different than blood transfusion. The procedure is not found in the Bible but what you find is the law to “abstain from blood”. It doesn’t always mean that if something is not found in the Bible that it is always acceptable to God. Cannibalism and cannibal are words not found in the Bible but there are some texts in the Bible which can explain why those are prohibited.

Abstain from blood is a general instruction, an unqualified one. Acts 15:28 -29 doesn’t say “abstain from eating/drinking blood” or “abstain from animal blood”. It only states “abstain from blood”. JWs believe the abstention includes human blood. That’s why Christians do not eat or drink human or animal blood (living or dead) because of the instruction in Acts 15:28,29. Blood transfusion and eating blood are different procedures, but uses the SAME product which is blood. Acts 15:28-29, tells us to abstain from BLOOD (the product). But notice that the abstention in Acts 15:28,29 is only specific to the use IN the human body. The things listed in Acts 15:28-29 all point towards the use in the human body. That’s why it also states “Good Health to you”

Edited:

In organ transplant, how much is the blood in the organ? In the meat that we eat, how much is blood? But when we eat beef or chicken with some leftover blood in it, are we still obeying God's law to abstain from blood? Yes we do. God does not ask that every single drop of blood be eliminated so it is the question of how much blood is taken in the body. In blood transfusion, there's a lot of blood being transfused in the body, so one can't rightfully say that he is abstaining from blood if he gets blood transfusion.

2007-04-09 03:30:30 · answer #4 · answered by trustdell1 3 · 3 4

If a doctor tells an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol, and that alcoholic takes cough syrup for his cold, though it plainly states contains alcohol, have they contradicted the doctor's orders? Yes.

You can't transplant an organ without also transmitting that person's blood into your body. What's the difference? Especially if the organ is a heart. The blood from that heart will be circulated over and over with the patients own blood over time. Not much different from a transfusion, except artificial tubes are not used

This is just another way for this sect to isolate themselves from others as different, but has no biblical support at all. If they want to go further, why won't all Witnesses refuse organ transplants, based on it's similarity to cannibalism? Why not? This is a similar reasoning behind blood transfusion. When will it end? I won't even get into their approval of vaccines, which seems contradictory as well.

Most of the understanding surrounding these issues with Witnesses, are taken from one of their books ironically called "reasoning" from the scriptures. This means these are practices accepted based on how a person or people in their organization have "reasoned" various scriptures with their own minds. This explains a lot of contradiction.

My heart goes out to those who lost their lives because of these teachings.

2007-04-09 06:30:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5 5

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

side note some view it as cannabalism since the human body will reject such foriegn tissue without proper medication.

2007-04-08 14:42:21 · answer #6 · answered by gary d 4 · 3 5

They actually have a Blood video/ documentary about their stand on blood and about blood alternatives it is Very interesting some teachers are showing it to students it is not really religious and worth the watch if you know any JWs ask to borrow a copy I think most people will be surprised I am not a JW but found this video extremely enlightening

2007-04-08 06:14:52 · answer #7 · answered by badluckbear1 2 · 3 3

All blood has to be completely washed from a donated organ. Even without the chance of diseases, due to whatever injuries that killed the donor, the person's liver would have been putting out large amounts of clotting factors, which is very dangerous to the recipient. They are having significant problems with that now due to overbleeding at donation centers.

As for doing the transplant itself, since blood transfusions suppress the immune system in a manner similar to AIDS, they were generally used for transplants, but that is now changing. UCLA now does bloodless transplants, including the Liver. Recovery time is cut by 70% by not using blood and can cut transplant costs by up to $20,000.

Remember, only 10% of those refusing transfusions are witnesses. Google "Bloodless Surgery" and you find that over 150 hospitals now offer all their patients bloodless options due its safety and reduced costs. Something that is now affecting the value of companies that specialize in distributing blood products.

2007-04-09 21:15:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 6

Yes, read the Blood bruchure.
Available from any Jehovah's Witness.

2007-04-08 06:09:46 · answer #9 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 3 4

They don't. They believe in non-blood surgery.

2007-04-08 06:08:41 · answer #10 · answered by Puggz 3 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers