2007-09-05 06:36:25 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not according to the Watchtower, but according to the Bible. (Acts 15:29) There are so many other, much safer options out there I can't believe their refusal of blood transfusions are still an issue. Most doctors would rather use some alternate form of treatment, they just use blood because it's cheaper!
Also if you were to have surgery and asked not to have a blood transfusion, the doctors would be more careful in their work so you lose less blood. Because of this you will recover faster.
2007-09-05 06:46:53 · answer #1 · answered by Mabes 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Acts 15:29 is, as stated by another answerer, in reference to the ingestion of blood. Lev 17:14: you shall EAT the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever EATETH it shall be cut off.
Gen 9:4: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not EAT.
I am not saying by this that blood transfusions are right of wrong, just that I would need more scripture to debate the issue.
As for the bloodless surgery, what about trauma resulting in blood loss, persons with internal bleeding, and certain types of anemia, to name a few?
And as for the cost debate, I seriously doubt that suggestion. I could see that since transfusions are covered by insurance and if blood is cheap, hospitals would love that idea, nothing for something, but I doubt many physicians would jeopardize their medical/surgical license for any institution's profit. As far as the blood bank's profit, I have no personal experience but I do know that that has NEVER affected my judgment when it comes to patient care. I know that physicians in our area have no idea of the cost of blood; even if they did again I don't see them jeopardizing their medical license for hospital profit. Moreover, doctors, nurses and most health care providers that I know pledge to do good and no intentional harm.
As far as there being other alternatives to blood, I whole heartily agree. Furthermore; there are certain types of equipment that filters and returns the person's own blood back to them. Nonetheless, in some instances nothing will suffice but blood &/or blood products.
Again I personally need more info.
2007-09-05 12:38:05 · answer #2 · answered by Left Behind 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jehovah's Witness does not allow for blood transfusions. The verses they quote all have to do with not drinking the blood of the animal you are going to eat. I have not figured out how this relates because I do not plan on eating the person who donated blood to me. In reality we are not drinking it, it is being pumped directly into the veins.
2007-09-05 06:45:43 · answer #3 · answered by 9_ladydi 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This question seems to ask whether a healthcare professional who is a Jehovah's Witness can administer a blood transfusion to a non-Witness patient. Each healthcare professional among Jehovah's Witnesses must decide this for himself, being careful not to violate his conscience. The article mentioned in this question notes that a medical professional among Jehovah's Witnesses could conscientiously implement any treatment he was instructed to implement.
There are no legal implications if a physician uses one entirely valid medical strategy over another, assuming he (and his insurance company's lawyer) can provide evidence that there was reasonable expectation that the outcome would be comparable or better. Please be assured that there is literally no circumstance in which the infusion of whole blood is superior to modern techniques.
Anti-Witness critics and pro-blood activists conveniently ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the bible to comment upon minor blood fractions (those derived from plasma, platelets, or red/white cells). It seems remarkable to suggest that one or more of these targeted treatments would be less preferable than the kind of scattershot "see what sticks" methodology represented by old-fashioned blood transfusion.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm
Incidentally, this questioner has asked this same question repeatedly for many months:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905103625AAvtnWC
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905102505AA20vYB
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070406072132AABC11t
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070405025345AA22CCt
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070405025049AAo0Gzw
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070402035725AAEZdCA
2007-09-05 06:50:48 · answer #4 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes thats correct...they take the words of the bible that said eating of blood is forbidden and instead of taking it to mean the actual eating of blood, they think it means taking blood into your body by any means ( although I wasnt aware that they performed blood transfusions back in the Old Testament days ).
2007-09-05 06:43:24 · answer #5 · answered by sweet girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋