Does a Jehovah's witness have the right to refuse a blood transfusion for his/ her sick baby?

Answer 1

Yes. They are legally responsible for the child and can make medical decisions for them, and obviously they are allowed to make decisions based on their religious beliefs. You may not agree with it, but they're only doing what they believe to be right.

Answer 2

Yes Jehovahs Witnesses do...There are soo many other alternatives out there right now that are more safe for you...There is a reason God said to abstain from blood, aside from it being not safe....some mentioned above that Witnesses would rather watch there child die...thats not true. They would do what they could to save there childs life in a way that is acceptable by God...who wouldnt. But they do abstain from blood transfusions, because that is part of there religion. Some above spoke about the different alternatives that they can & do take. I would not receive a blood transfusion!!! My parents are Witnesses & I too am studying to be a Jehovahs Witness & I follow there beliefs. There are some doctors that would not take a blood transfusion because of all the bad things attached to it....they do the alternatives

Answer 3

Do you have a right to refuse any medical treatment for your child? Should parents never be allowed to second guess or question the decision of the doctors? The witnesses are who gave you that right.

As for blood transfusions, why not also ask the other 90% of people who are not JWs and are refusing blood transfusions? So many that over 150 hospitals now make it a part of their regular treatments.

If a witness cannot question a decision about a blood transfusion, than parents should not have that right for any treatment of children.

Witnesses refuse blood based on the teachings of the Bible and are laughed at, just as the ancient Jews were laughed at about doing circumcising. At the time, they didn't know why, only that God ordered it. Today, we know why, as technology has shown there was a medical reason for it. As time passes, medical technology is showing the inherent danger in all blood transfusions. Don't you ever wonder why the post transfusion illnesses people get are not the common diseases, but the very rare ones? The very same diseases you get with AIDS.

There was a conference here in Kansas City of reps from transfusion services all over the world. I had some British nurses in my taxi and I asked them about the police in Britain that ones under 18 were to be given only blood imported from the U.S., due to the problems of Mad Cow Disease in the blood supply over there. They said they had been, but that police has changed, as America's Donated Blood no longer meets their safety requirements. They now import from Australia. You might want to ask what changed they no longer think American Blood is safe?

I do know of one problem that has been occurring. It's over bleeding at the donation centers. Blood sales is big money so the more you can move the better. When they take out too much blood from a person, their immune system responds with blood clotting chemicals. When put into another person, this can quickly cause blood clots to form, injuring or killing the person.

You really should take the time to learn more about this process. You may end up being one of the 90% of non-witnesses also refusing blood.

Answer 4

Yes they do.They have an advance directive made up in all 50 states by a panel of attorneys.As well as other foreign countrys that have something different that they use.

There is a Ombiguas (misspelled) budget act passed by the Federal government in 1987 which made the patients bill of rights which states the right to refuse service.They now want something similar for airline travel.

There are alternatives to blood transfusions that a patient can do called hemodilusion and cell salvaging. These a witness can do.
Some doctors pump to much blood out of babys when they are born to get samples out of them and this can lead to the need for transfusions but doesn't mean they have to except.

Answer 5

Depends on which state you are in , but for the most part a guardian or parent cannot refuse to allow emergency life saving care to be administered to a minor in their care. If this was an emergency room situation a social worker would most likely be called in to seize custody and authorize the necessary treatment pending a hearing on the fitness of the parents. Once again this depends on the state. If on the other hand a Doctor reccomends a course of treatment that is life saving and the parents refuse to administer it for religous reasons, AND there is no other alternative reasonable treatment that can be administered that will conform to their religous beliefs then they can be reported and whatever form of Social Services is employed by the state can generally intervene and remove the child. If the parents do not allow or administer life saving treatment and the child dies as a result the parents can be prosecuted, even if they refused the treatment based on sincere religous beliefs. I forget the state but two parents who were Christian Scientists were criminally tried and convicted for this. They rejected treatment for their son who had an obscructed bowel, opting to pray over him for his recovery. He died as a result and they were tried and convicted for either Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter (It has been awhile and I have forgotten which charge it was). On the other hand if the treatment is experimental or is not necessarily a lifesaving treatment then generally parents can refuse for religous reasons (depending on the state and the level of harm that forgoing treatment can reasonably be expected to cause). If this is an issue you are facing for real you should contact your local social services office and discuss your concerns.

Answer 6

You make a good point. States can outlaw spanking(not abuse) despite the Christian belief held by some, not all, that if you spare the rod, you spoil the child, but they allow death because of religious beliefs? If an alternative to blood will save the child's life, I can understand. But if only blood will do so, and it's refused, it's wrong. JWs have applied their own meaning to scriptures. Are you sure they can refuse this treatment for their children?

Answer 7

Stamford Hospital vs. Vega, 674 A. 2d 821 (Conn., 1996) says:

A healthcare facility does not have the right to substitute its judgment for that of the patient. Nor may a healthcare facility presume that its judgment represents the judgment of society at large, or of the State or of the medical profession in general. However, the court did state it would honor the right of a healthcare facility, as a practical matter, to be able to go to court, as a neutral party, to seek guidance before going ahead, or holding back, in such life-and-death situations.

Answer 8

With blood extenders and substitutes (which Witnesses allow), it is not a common occurrance anymore.
However, an attorney from the state or hospital usually gets a judge to order an override of the parent's rights in this situation and a transfusion is usually administered.

Answer 9

There have been documented cases where the law has intervened. Also I know of some JW who have taken a transfusion of plasma but not the red blood itself. .

Answer 10

Yes.

It is arrogant and totalitarian when government or a handful of doctors insists that *IT* should have the only right to choose a course of treatment, especially when responsible parents are thoughtfully requesting a different course of treatment. It would seem that when parents give clear evidence of studiously working to protect and prolong their child's life and best interests, the parents should be given the deference and respect befitting any other serious family decision.


Ironically, the fact remains undisputed that many MULTIPLES more have died as a direct or indirect result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.

Fair-minded healthcare experts admit that the medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells. Perhaps pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness critics) ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).





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!

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.

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.

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

Answer 11

yes, its the law.

not only that but do your research on blood transfusion and you will see that they are not healthy.

there is a bloodless medicine center here in south Florida b/c doctors are starting to see that science was wrong to say that blood was a good idea in the first place.