What do you think...?

Question

about this news?

See:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/06/24/japan_deals_blow_to_jehovahs_witnesses/2040/

Answer 1

Thanks for bringing the Japanese medical situation to our attention. It's interesting as it shows how deeply concerned Doctors are that some minors are still dying for lack of full blood transfusions. Despite JW denials, hundreds of thousands of JWs have died needlessly since blood transfusions were stated to be "against God's law" by Watchtower Society leaders in the early 1950s. Although considerably fewer JWs are dying nowadays (since the Wt.Soc started "allowing" more and more blood fractions) there are times when only whole blood transfusions will save lives. For JWs to turn around and imply that more people DIE from blood treatments than are saved by them is disengenuous.

It is also misleading for JWs to argue the case for non-blood treatments being better, given that their stance is entirely theological and has nothing to do with whether there are medical problems. Even if there wasn't a single medical complication with any blood transfusions, they would still refuse to have them because they've been given a particular interpretation of a few Bible verses and to disagree with that is to risk losing their JW status. Given that they believe they must be good JWs to survive Armageddon, fear is at back of all this.

Disturbingly, Wt.Soc leaders have been moving the blood-goal-posts further and further apart over the years. Although it's good that more and more treatments are being "allowed", it's appalling that some JWs died for lack of them when they were "disallowed". Some of the blood fractions now "permitted" are not small components of blood, as JWs imply, but major. Things are approaching the point where JWs will be able to have virtually every constituent of blood separately, but they will still be expected to refuse all of those components in the 'skin' that 'holds' blood together. Currently JWs are still not "allowed" to donate their own blood for storage prior to an operation, but in a short time their Governing Body will vote on it again, and one more vote will secure it. No wonder medical and governmental authorities are trying to do a bit more to save young lives. This is not an academically theological issue for them!

Answer 2

What is to prevent the government (in its infinite wisdom) from deciding that a child with nausea must be given marijuana cigarettes to smoke? What if a cancer patient's parents preferred chemotherapy but the government insisted on radiation therapy?

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; 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 3

News is boring