Should children of Jehovah's Witness parents be given blood transfusions if needed?

Question

If a child needed a blood transfusion and, it was against the parents religious beliefs, should they still be given one? I would say yes...No one has the right to enforce their own religious beliefs upon another, not even their own child.

Answer 1

The general consensus of the courts is yes -- the state's interest in protecting the well-being of the children during a medical emergency overrides the parents' interest in free expression of their religion. The legal analysis is that the burden on the parents is very small compared to the harm to the child otherwise.

I have to say I agree with that conclusion -- I am a huge supporter of freedom of religion, but in the case of children too young to make the decision themself, someone has to give them the opportunity to grow until they are old enough to make the decision.

Answer 2

You are correct. I was a teacher and I had 2 boys and a girl they were brothers and sisters. They were about to start school, but because of this religion, they did not get their shots for school and there were 2 other children at home not of school age yet. One of the children at home was sick and needed a blood transfusion the court made an order for the 3 in school to get their shots and for the hospital to give the transfusion because the health and live of the child was first. God will not punish you for treating your children by giving them the medications that they need and the IV's required including transfusions. The law, court, and justice has power here.

Answer 3

A parent for this reason being the criminal dad or mum of their infants will attempt to make the determination to no longer have blood transfusion extraordinarily collectively as their infants are youthful (decrease than 12) 12 and up if the wellbeing practitioner properly-knownshows it needed (i.e. no option scientific care conceivable probability of that slender) he will take it to courtroom then extraordinarily after 12 the infants could have a say if a new child has an analogous opinion along with his mum and dad and supply logical motives inclusive of my mommy stated no so i say no and supply THEIR scriptural reason of no longer desiring a blood transfusion the courts will many times rule of their choose

Answer 4

"if needed"?

That seems like a prejudicial premise, and actually contradicts modern medicine. 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).


So who would the questioner put in the godlike position of deciding exactly what is "NEEDED"? 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.


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 5

Well duh. Jehovah's witness's are so ridiculous, sorry to say but how is it against any kind of belief to receive blood transfusions in order to SAVE A LIFE. hmm let my kid die over religion or live?? there's a toughie. how medieval are these people? and for another they cant celebrate their OWN BIRTHDAYS!!! how the F is that religious of any sort. its just the day they came into this world. ugh so dumb.

Answer 6

Rather than focusing on the religious aspects of your hypothetical, I'd say that no parents have the right to impose a death sentence on their children for any reason - religious or secular.

Answer 7

No. Because children are to young to know their religion so it is the parents choice for them.

Answer 8

yes

Answer 9

I agree with you!!!