what can you say about the refusal of jehovahs witnesses to blood transfusion??

Question

its a matter of life.!!!

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in getting the best medical care available for themselves and their families. Many individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses are themselves physicians and other health care professionals.

Jehovah's Witnesses have hundreds of hospital liaison committees around the globe to help advance nonblood medical management technologies and awareness in the medical community.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

Even though it has been said before, I do agree that it comes down to a freedom of religion. I don't see much difference between this and other religion's "laws". For example, there are religious laws that state that sex is only allowed in a marriage and purely for procreation. There are religious laws that state that followers can not eat certain types of food (pork, fish, etc...). There are religious laws that state that a percentage of your income should go to the church. These are religious laws that people follow because they are the ways of the faith. I don't see this as any different than a Witness refusing a blood transfusion.
I don't think that a Witness will see a blood transfusion as a matter of life or death, it's a religious law that they are obligated to follow. Though it is unfortunate and frustrating for doctors to be in this situation, there is nothing that they can do, much like an EMT who wants to help someone who is refusing medical assistance. I guess we have to accept it as a fact of life and chalk it up to religious freedom.

Answer 3

It's their choice. However, if they refuse a blood transfusion for anyone else, their child, parent, sibling or husband, that is overstepping the mark. Morally, this should not be allowed.

I was in hospital once for an operation and a Witness in the same ward was transferred to another hospital because the theatre staff were worried about the outcome of her operation if a blood transfustion were to be needed and refused. Their work in trying to save that patient's life would be compromised, as well as their careers.

Answer 4

It states, His delivery mum and dad, Lindberg Sr. and Rachel Wherry, who have not were given custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be on the listening to, believed their son could favor to have had the transfusion and reported he were unduly inspired by using making use of his criminal mum or dad, his aunt Dianna Mincin, who's also a Jehovah's Witness. After examining his I wondered why all this time the boy became sick and his mum and dad by no skill were given the following until eventually ultimately he went to courtroom. As for him being unduly inspired The be certain made his ingredient: The be certain stated his decision became depending strictly on assistance. "i have were given not were given faith Dennis' decision is the outcome of any coercion. he's mature and is universal with the end results of his decision," With the transfusions and different clinical care, the boy were furnish a 70 % threat of surviving the subsequent 5 years. If a guy or female follows what they imagine in outstanding, and that concept is contained contained in the Bible, why could favor to he not keep on with it. purely to stay some more desirable useful years. God tells us if we persist such as his rules he will positioned across us back to existence. The boy keen to maintain on with the Bible and God has not forgotten him.

Answer 5

I have some friends that are Witnesses and i think their rational is along the lines of blood isn't something meant to be shared. They're not opposed to life saving in general but they're of the opinion that if the only way to save someone's life is to mix the blood from someone else, then it must just be their time to go...
I don't personally agree with this school of thought but i can understand why this makes sense for them.

Answer 6

Maybe it is to them too (a matter of life).

I do know that many times transfusions arent really necessary - just easier. Depends on the doctor.

Answer 7

I knew a JW. She had severe liver problems. Not only did she accept a new liver, but also a transfusion. While she did live a bit longer, she was ex-communicated from the church, her family (even her own mother wouldn't speak to her!) and friends. When she passed on, no JW's would come to the ceremony. It was really really sad.

Answer 8

I think all religious people should be so generous as the Jehovah's.

If they need a transfusion & refuse - one less schizophrenic on earth.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Answer 9

I say, it is a personal choice. I personally am thankful for the amount of new non blood based techniques that have been made because of people being honest enough to say "I won't take blood"

Answer 10

They seem to follow what the bible says.

King James. Act 15:20 "Abstain from blood".

Answer 11

Freedom of Religion. Deal with it. Their decision, not yours. Besides, they don't believe death in this life is true death. They believe in an after life.