A question to Jehovah's Witnesses regarding their children?

Question

I don't know about other countries, but here in Australia, if a child needs urgent blood to save its' life, the parents religous beliefs are overidden, and the child will be given blood.

So here is my question for you Jehovah's Witnesses.

Do you believe you should have the right to deny blood for your children, even in life and death situations? What is your view about the government going over your beliefs to give your children blood?

Answer 1

The US Constitution guarantees us freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. The only time this freedom is usurped is when the exercise of that freedom causes danger to life or liberty. Hopefully the US and other countries will adopt the stance that Australia has.

The JWs misquote outdated material in order to advance the "fact" that "many multitudes more" are dying from blood transfusions than are being saved by them. This is utter and complete fallacy. Achtung quotes a Watchtower article that is copyrighted 2006, but only uses sources from the 1980s and older, in order to support his "facts".

The actual fact is, if a patient comes in with a significant amount of blood loss resulting from trauma, a whole blood transfusion is much more effective at addressing that patient's needs than any fractions. And I'm sorry, but I'm going to trust my doctor who has gone to medical school for many years to tell me what is "needed" medically to save my child's life, before I trust an untrained religious leader with an agenda.

The JW tactic is to make their members fear blood transfusions because they know that, in dire circumstances, any loving parent would choose life for their child. By erroneously teaching that blood transfusions kill, they scare the members into staying in line with their teachings.

People who neglect their children lose the right to rear their children. It doesn't make it okay if they do it in the name of religion, and the government has every right to step in and make sure that these innocent children receive the life-saving medical treatment that they need.

Answer 2

I am not a JW but i think it is a parents right to decide in matters such as this. I understand that in some situations it is a case of life and death, but in others it is merely the doctors putting pressure on the person or parents to have the transfusion. However, this is a difficult topic and can be argued both against and in favor. In the bible, it warns against EATING blood, it doesn't warn against accepting a blood transfusion. Although, JW's do accept other transfusions which have fewer health risks. I read somewhere that many JW's don't stick to this part of their doctrine but i no a number do because i am friends with a couple and they do. One of my friends was told that she would need a blood transfusion otherwise her life would be put at great risk and being a JW she refused on religious grounds. After she made a full recovery without the transfusion, she was told that it might not have worked anyway!

Answer 3

I am not a JW but as I study the bible quite a lot I must say they are correct in their stand . Acts 15:28&29. There are several other scriptures that warn about not accepting blood.
Mark 8:35&36 shows that disobaying gods law is fatal.
What a horrible situation to be in!!!!
John 11:25 Jesus promises resarection to those who keep the faith.
So the deliemer for them is obey the bible or diobey.
I won't judge them either way.
They must have the right to choose
As to the Goverment , if they take control what can the JW do ? It's out of there hands then and the guilt is on the goverment who must answer to gods judgement.

Answer 4

in the beginning i'm constantly suspicious as quickly as I hear rantings like this. somewhat some situations it includes incorrect information. in spite of the fact that if a number of it somewhat is genuine, JW's are actually not the only faith touched with the aid of this subject. in undemanding terms a man or woman with a grudge might spend a lot time getting to know a correlation of JW's and pedophilia. it is not a everyday prevalence. you have got spent as a lot time getting to know the various effective features of the Witnesses. look at each and all of the human beings who have replaced their lives in an excellent way while they grew to become Witnesses. look on the Witnesses that have long gone to penal complex for their ideals. look on the JW's who have been thrown in concentration camps for the period of the Nazi Regime and can't compromise their ideals. The Bible says: "...regardless of the indisputable fact that the sins of you human beings might desire to be as scarlet, they are going to be made white in basic terms like snow." Even pedophiles may well be forgiven with the aid of God in the event that they alter. in the event that they revert decrease back to that it somewhat is amazingly unhappy however the JW's won't be in a position to be held to blame for somebody leaving their teachings anymore than AA is at fault for a member going off the wagon. the international isn't a worse place by using existence of JW's. i individually do not know you, yet as quickly as I did i ask your self how spotless your existence is. the reason I say it particularly is by technique of the fact i've got elementary people who have accomplished not something yet trash us and then come to confirm that they had somewhat some massive faults.

Answer 5

This question uses the word "needs".

Just who decides that a particular treatment is "needed" and every single alternative is without merit?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not ignore the need for medical treatment. They simply want nonblood medical management, and they are able to find it in nearly every reputable medical facility in the world. In 2007, it is frankly shocking when some doctor or government pretends that there are not hundreds of specific alternatives and minor blood fractions which are (in most cases) MORE effective than the scattershot infusion of whole and component blood.

So who should decide between valid treatments? Almost always it should be the patient and the patient's family.

Both Jehovah's Witnesses AND most progressive governments believe that so-called "mature minors" should be allowed to make educated decisions regarding their own medical care. But who should make such a decision for a three-year-old, regarding which medical alternative should be used?

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. Sadly, pro-blood activists and anti-Witness critics ignore two facts.

1. Many MULTIPLES more have died as a result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.

2. 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.

Why should government or a handful of doctors insist that *IT* should have the only right to choose a course of treatment, especially when responsible parents are simply and thoughtfully requesting a different course of treatment? A Jehovah's Witness may 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).


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 6

http://ajwrb.org site for the changing laws on Jw's and the blood transfusion doctrine....Names of Children lost by faulty theology


You can e mail me and I will link you to past questions such as yours that address the changes in watchtower rules and to see who are dead who could have been saved.....




May22, 1994 Awake magazine features 26 Children who are dead now because of JW policy......They are put up as kind of martars, but I think this is kind of sick.