Is it true that Jehovah's witnesses to obstain from life saving blood transfusion?

Question

So, let's say, you ge in a car accident. You lose a lot of blood. You will only survive if you have a blood transfusion. No blood transfusion means death. Is this correct?

Answer 1

No, the questioner's premise is incorrect. The truth is that many MULTIPLES more have died as the direct result of a blood transfusion than from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical strategies.

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).


Of course, 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!

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". As previously mentioned, 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

What you described is an urban myth.

It was started in the 30's when blood was thought to be the next wonder drug, and has continued to the present

Most honest doctors will tell you that the blood they but into your system today, won't have an effect for two to three days.

For the few dollars, or the free contribution of donated blood, hospitals, and labs can make $1000's of dollars.

All it does at the moment of transfusion is expand the volume of your blood,

Salt water does that better, for less money out of your pocket and with less health risks.

Add to that, Jehovah's command, why would anyone want to take blood?

Answer 3

In 1988, my wife took an exit too fast and rolled the semi truck. The top of the cab was torn off, electrical wires wrapped around my right leg, and my upper body slammed into the guard rail. My wife was under the wreckage and was closer to be rescued than I was, so it was 60 minutes before they could get me out.

My right leg was severely lacerated in seven spots, from the hip to the calf, 3-inches deep. I had internal injuries and a broken left shoulder. They took us to St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet, IL.

I went under the knife without a blood transfusion, but not without first telling a dirty joke in the ER without noticing the Nun sanding in the corner. There are far too many alternatives to the transfusion, and I didn't have to tolerate the post surgical illnesses common in people who have transfusions.

Only 10% of those refusing blood are JWs, so why are you targeting them? Or is it because they make an easy target? You could target the 150 hospitals that now provide bloodless options to all their patients.

In March of 2005, there was a conference in Kansas City of blood transfusion experts from throughout the world. They were here to learn a new labeling system. Prior to than, there was no uniform labeling system for blood in the U.S., let alone the world, causing mismatches. I had some ladies in my taxi cab from England. I asked them about the British Policy that anyone under the age of 18 could only receive blood imported from the U.S. due to the contamination problems from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy?

They said that was the policy, but U.S. blood safety had dropped below minimum standards and now they are importing from Australia. They said we are fooling ourselves if we think the American supply is anywhere near safe. Aside from contamination, blood banks have been overbleeding to keep the supply up. This can cause the donors immune system to release large amounts of clotting factors, which can get into the donated blood. The person receiving the blood could suddenly form dangerous clots.

If you want a transfusion, have at it. As from me, I will stay with the 90% non-JWs who refuse.

Answer 4

The bible clearly says to abstain from blood, as well as fornication and things sacrificed to idols.
Automatically that means stay away from it.
Many people argue that a transfusion isn't the same as eating blood, but is it really so different?
If a doctor strictly forbids you to drink alcohol, would you feed it in your veins through an I.V.?

Besides, I'd rather die because I stayed away from blood (as God ordered) than live because I disobeyed that ordered.

Answer 5

We as Christians feel it is wrong to use BTs as the Bible Clearly tells us to abstain. From a medical standpoint, it is becoming more and more clear that there are MANY medical problems with using BTs.

Consider, if you could save a life by murdering someone, Would you??? At some point we must all decide how to act based on what we feel is right and wrong.

Answer 6

That situation does not exist.

You need to do more research than that.

Answer 7

Yes. That is what they believe. But don't sound so judgemental (even though I agree with you) because you might piss somebody off...