blood transfusions Jehova's witnesses?

Question

Why is it wrong to receive blood transfusions. According to what belief/scriptures is this based. Is it a sin to receive them? What are the penalties if someone of this religion has had knowingly a transfusion?

Answer 1

It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who decide that blood is 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.

Jesus Christ, as God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood (it would hardly have been necessary to remind Christians to abstain from murderous bloodguilt).

It would seem that all conscientious Christians would feel 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 [the meat of which would contain blood] 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 [the meat of which would contain blood] 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 2

I am sorry for your loss. It sounds like you really cared about her and her death has left you sad. We ALL should have the right to refuse treatment if we so choose. That is part of our freedom of choice. In cases where it runs the risk of death or potential harm to children it is tougher to see the danger of NOT having a choice. Institutionalized health care runs the risk of recommending treatment we do not need, and taking away our rights. Some doctors take their Hippocratic oath to a level where they believe they can make life decisions for others. Doctors do the best they can, but they are only as good as the knowledge they have, plus they are human and can be wrong. ADD: As to the excuse why JWs refuse blood transfusions, it is partly an interpretation of what others call the Kosher laws about the slaughter of meat animals. As the time that the OT was written, ancient people struggled to understand disease and set up restrictions that they hoped would keep their people healthy. At the time that JW sect became popular, blood transfusions were very risky and many people died directly or indirectly because of them. Even today, there are still blood born diseases that can slip through the screening process at blood banks. The risk is much smaller, but it exists. Note: Most people in the US do not realize that the way that modern slaughter houses execute animals is still done according to a softened version of Kosher rules.

Answer 3

For every anecdote about someone refusing blood and dieing, there are at least 3 about someone refusing blood and healing better and faster than expected. There are also at least 1 about someone accepting blood and dying or contracting some disease that leaves them disabled for life. However these are not the reasons Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood. We do it because of our faith and trust in Jehovah who directs us through his word to "abstain from blood" (Acts 15:28,29)

Answer 4

The question is getting old. Isn't there anything else you can cut and paste?

Since only 10% of those refusing blood are JWs, why not ask this of all the others? There are now so many that if you google bloodless surgery, you will find that over 150 hospitals offer it as an otion to all their patients.

As for a JW accepting, ultimately, it come down to the individual. Like any sin, no person is immune from giving in to it, especially when being put under pressure by someone of authority. But, this is also why every congregation has material on alternatives. The problem comes when a hospital refuses to give up the high profits from blood transfusions and refuses to use alternatives.

Would a person be disfellowshipped? Depends on the view of the person. If they recognize that they did commit a sin and desire forgiveness, than it is an eternal matter. If they simply tell the elders to go to hell and they will do whatever they want, than it is a different matter altogether.

As for people claiming that abstaining (Acts 15:20) only refers to eating, does that mean that only oral sex is bad and that all other forms of fornication are okay?

UCLA now performs bloodless transplants. Google “Bloodless Surgery” and you will find 150 hospitals now offer bloodless options to all their patients.

There is so much in the Bible that they could not have understood the science behind why something should or should not be done. In our modern times, we are learning just how the science fits. A good example was when God instructed his people to no longer allow marriages between close relatives. They didn’t understand what genetics was, or why for 2000 years it was okay, and than it wasn’t. Now, we know why.

There is no safe blood transfusion, even if there is no infectious agent present in it. Every transfusion lowers the body's immunal response in the exact same manner as AIDS does. There may or may not be any connection, but the fact is it leaves you open very RARE, not regular diseases, just like AIDS. It still requires coming into contact with the disease for it to become a problem.

That aside, there is the growing problems with contamination of the blood supply.

I'm a taxi cab driver in Kansas City. Ask most any cab driver or taxi passenger in the area who Papa Bear is and they will tell you.

Last Spring, there was a conference here of reps of Blood Services, from all over the world. They were here to learn a new labeling system. Up until this year, there was no uniform labeling system for blood, causing mismatches and other problems.

I had some passengers from London and I asked them about an article I read that England was importing thousands of pinks of blood a year from the U.S. because of contamination of their local supply by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow). They said they were, but the practice has been discontinued, as the U.S. supply was no longer considered safe within the parameters they set, in other words, what is an allowable percentage of contamination.

They now get it from Australia. Apparently, Canadian is also not considered safe. She said we are fooling ourselves if we think our supply was anywhere near being safe. There are no tests for Mad Cow that can be done on blood. It can only be confirmed after death. There has also been an increasing rate of viral zoonotic (Rabies).

The sale of blood and blood products is big money, to where there is a growing problem with over bleeding of those who donate or sell their blood. When you over bleed, the immune system gets activated, causing a production of chemicals to create clots. That can be a problem for those receiving the blood, to suddenly get a blockage in a vein.

It should also be noted that strict Judaism also believes the blood is the soul, which is why when there is terrorist bombing, they clean up every last bit of blood to be buried, even chipping up the roads.

The fact is that what the Jws have done for over 50 years has made the care of patients safer. It is why you must give permission to have your child treated. There is also one benefit of their work for those who do take transfusions. It had driven down the cost of blood as corporations compete to get hospitals to buy from them.

So, if people want to hide their heads and think their safe, go right ahead, but I'll stay with the 90% of non-JWs who are also refusing blood.


Quality Alternatives to Transfusion
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

Answer 5

from a medical point of view, I know often it is viewed as forbidden for a patient of that faith to recieve blood. I would not give a Jehovah Witness blood unless I had written consent either from the patient, or their legal next of kin if the patient cannot answer for themselves. I have been involved in case where the patient and family were adamant - no blood, no way, until the family all went away, then the patient (who had just had a baby and severe post partum hemorrhage) agreed to it. There are times when blood substitues just won't work efficiently enough to save a persons life.
As their details are confidential unless she wanted us to disclose them, we did not need tell her family.

Answer 6

One JW has listed the few Bible texts they claim supports this doctrine. It is easy to spot the difficulties of trying to turn Old Testament laws on not eating blood (parallel to not eating fat) with using blood in such a way that it never touches the digestive tract. The New Testament passages (all two of them) use a vague "abstain from blood" phrase but anyone familiar with the context knows it's talking about murder, and eating food sacrificed to idols (that would have blood in it). Yes, the Bible says blood is sacred because it represents life - which is God's sacred gift. But they go too far in making the symbol for life more important than the thing it symbolises. They've lost the plot.

A more recent position than disfellowshipping, is that no sanctions will be used if the JW who accepts a "disapproved" blood fraction/product/transfusion later repents of his "moment of weakness". Those who don't so repent are viewed as having disassociated themselves. Shunning, however, still applies even though you are going to have a dashed difficult job seeing that in print nowadays. It used to be spelled out clearly, but due to legal problems, Watchtower leaders speak merely of "directives" and appear to "allow" JWs freedom of conscience. Well, all "good" JWs "know" that if they "violate" this "law of God" and Armageddon erupts, they will die, never to be resurrected. Neither do they want JW family and friends to shun them. So you tell me if penalties apply or not.

Further, their literature always gives blood transfusions a bad press, implying something horrendous, if not downright fatal, will result. There is never (to my knowledge) any admission that millions of lives have been saved by blood treatments. They try to take the credit for "pushing" medical advancements with non-blood treatments while it's not admitted that medical developments are prompted mainly by desires to save money and to improve patients' chances of recovery with less side-effects. Even if JWs never refused blood, those advances would have been made - later, if not sooner. But try getting them to admit to that! Actually, it's not the rank and file JWs who have the problem here, so don't be harsh on them. They are told by their 12 or so leaders what God's "revealed truth" is, and this was one of those modern revelations (around 1950). But their leaders are so widening the goal-posts, it won't be long before everything except whole blood will be permitted. Meantime, some of them just keep dying.

Answer 7

If a Jehovas Witness knowingly has a blood transfusion they will be banished from the faith and no one in the religion is allowed to speak to them ever again.

Answer 8

They are completely at to refuse a transfusion,it's their choice to die but to deny your own innocent children the right to live is downright criminal.

Answer 9

They have decided to allow blood fractions now, which is like God telling them they can't eat ham sandwiches, so they eat just the ham, or just the bread in one instance.
They also forget about the amount of blood transferred during transplant of a body part (their view of that has shifted back and forth a couple of times) and that there are trace amounts of blood in a mother's breast milk.
You can be shunned based on their twisting of that 'law'.

Answer 10

As far as I know it is if a person is dying it must be
Jehovahs' way of telling them that their time is up
on this earth and they are going to a far grander place!
When I have them knocking at the door - I just tell them
I am a blood doner. They soon get the message.
(I wished my in laws had the other week when they
were being pestered!)
I do not know of the penalties they are given if they go against
their religion.
It must be a lonely cult to be in.