What do JW's have to say to people who are only alive because of blood transfusions?

Question

In my family, the RH problem reared its ugly head.

Because of this, my mother had two still births and lost a pair of twins.

Two of my brothers and myself are only alive because we had transfusions at birth.

While I know there are now other ways to deal with RH, which saved my son from needing a transfusion, those options weren't available in the 60s.

I've had JWs in the past try to tell me that they would never allow there own child to have a transfusion and that my mother should have let my brothers and I die.

How can they possibly justify this stand and expect someone who is alive only because of a transfusion to agree with them?

Answer 1

Woohoo - good question!

My mother was a JW for years.. then she gave birth to a hemophiliac. She decided at that point that her son's life was more important to her than that brand of Christianity.

I don't know what you would choose to say to them, but I know what my mom said after being threatened with disassociation. However, I won't be repeating it here :)

Answer 2

Christians don't make any sense to me. Why can Christians send young men to die in a foreign war. Basically be put in a meat grinder and knowing they are going to die and nothing is wrong with them. It is called believeing in what your fighting for. So we know that over 3500 young men have died because Bush and the religious right think that is the right thing to do. So the witnesses think that to die rather than take a blood transfussion is the right thing to do?
How is that any different? At least they are not killing anyone else. It is only killing if it is a baby?
why don't Christians see young men as humans that want to live. Only unwanted babies or some baby that doesn't get a blood transfussion is a real person. I mean really how many does this effect? I have never heard of one and I am sure it would make the 6 O clock news.

Answer 3

For everyone who was saved by a blood transfussion more were killed by one. Now Hipitttias and VD's and AIDS and a whole host of new diseases from TB to HIV.
I have known of ones who had almost every kind of surgury know to man now without blood. You can thank the witnesses who pioneered the blood less surgury. They have solutions now that the completely removed the blood in mice and replaced it with this solution and they lived.
I cannot imagine any witnesses saying that you should have let them die. we view life as precious.
There has always been blood replacements, and these arguments are groundless and used only to discredit the faith of Jehovah's witnesses. I raised my children during the 60's and remember a family who had a very premature infant and they wanted to completely replace her blood.
the witnesses refused and the courts fought them and said they were letting their little girl die. It made all the papers and it was so sensationalized that it was a circus.
The little girl never got the blood replacement, thank goodness because a lot of people at that time got AIDS from the blood transfussions. When she lived and is now married and a happy adult it never was put in the paper. It wasn't the sensationalize story anymore. For years people believed the baby died. And even told us well you let that baby die in 66"
Never believeing us that she was very much alive and well.
So now i find these stories hard to believe.
My Husband was told at least 3 or 4 times he wouldn't live through the night, he refused blood and has a blood disease.
He is 65 and doing quite well. However I am sure a lot of people believed that he died also.
I have been a witness for 46 years and in all that time been in numerous congregations and have never known of one person who died because they didn't get a blood transfussion. I am not saying there hasn't been, but it must not be a regular occurance or surely in all those years I would have known a least one.

Answer 4

JWs fail to acknowledge that the RH problem is a problem because the infant's blood can and does mix with the mother's blood. I am RH- myself and have to have rhogam shots when pregnant so that my blood does not attack the baby's blood.

Plain and simple, if God has an unwritten rule that no one's blood should be mixed, than He would NOT have broken this rule Himself during creation of one of His children.

Even more interesting is the fact that JWs are allowed to make a conscience decision regarding the components of blood.... and if they can have the separate componets, why not all together?

"...when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself."
The Watchtower 6/15/00 p.29-31.

Answer 5

Taking blood is not really all that safe. If it is stored to long it can kill you. If it hasn't been typed and cross matched that closely it can kill you. sometimes they keep the blood to long and I saw a man get a blood infection from the blood and it was a horrible way to die.
Some times ones with cancer get blood and it prolongs their agony. Those who refuse do much better.
Then there is the diseases associated with blood transfusions many physicians who are not associated with Jehovah's Witnesses will not give out blood to their patients.
In the 60's it was believed the cure all for just about everything I read in my medical books.
Now days they are a lot more cautious about how and who gets blood transfusions. Many physicians just are afraid to use it.

Answer 6

It is because they have faith that many do not have. They have faith that if they do die, that God's Son will one day soon resurrect them back to life and that by obeying Jehovah God's law respecting blood, they died faithful.
When Abraham was told to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him on an altar, did Abraham refuse? No---he was willing to kill the son he loved because he too had faith that Jehovah would one day resurrect him. We have to obey God's laws over what a mere human wants us or expects us to do. We prefer to obey God's laws regardless if doing so may temporarily end our lives. Jesus felt the same way and so did his apostles.
Consider the fact that now many operations, including open heart surgery are being done without blood. Bloodless surgery is very popular and is being performed, not only on Witnesses, but people of all faiths. There is less recovery time, it is not as expensive and there are minimal risks of contracting such things as hepatitis and AIDS.
Before long, there will be no need for blood transfusions.
LOBT

Answer 7

Perhaps this news article will balance your opinion.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/05/27/1180205077463.html

One of our dear Christian brothers who passed away several years ago due to sickle cell anemia, was the oldest living person with this disease. He did not take blood transfusions. Others with this condition were routinely treated with blood transfusions.

Answer 8

Jehovah's Witnesses would probably encourage such pro-blood zealots to reexamine the hard scientific facts rationally, rather than through an anti-Witness prism. The fact is that the best hospitals in developed lands use less blood year after year, and the very best surgeons use none at all.

Ironically, the fact remains undisputed that many MULTIPLES more have died as a direct 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 9

Your an atheist who doesn't even believe in God. And you have put out a lot of questions discrediting different religions.
So I find the truthfulness of your question very suspect.
How would you know about sacrifice and devotion to God when you don't even believe in God. I mean if that is what they want to do how is it hurting you?
I think you just made that up.

Answer 10

We believe God when he tells us to abstain from blood.
Even doctors and nurses will not take blood. More and more people are learning that God's warnings are valuable.

The rh factor is such a threat your mom should have been fixed to avoid losing more children.