Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses only (Please don't answer if you are not JW)?

Question

Why is it that JW's aren't allowed to have blood transfusion? In a case of a child(unbaptized) of a JW - the doctor advised for blood transfusion to save the child from death, would you as a parent give consent? If not, do you hold guilt of your child's death because you have resisted the transfusion same as you have disallowed your child to live longer?

Answer 1

Interestingly, both Jehovah's Witnesses AND more and more secular governments believe that so-called "mature minors" should be allowed to make educated decisions regarding their own medical care. When a minor is NOT a "mature minor", 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, 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).


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!

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/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

You have gotten some very good answers from Jehovah's Witnesses. I would just like to add something. I think it is important to remember that when people are injured, they die because of the trauma. There are people who are in car accidents who receive blood transfusions who still die, there are people who are suffering from cancer, who receive blood transfusions and still die, the list goes on and on. So, is the blood transfusion saving their lives? Nope. Who is to say that violating this law given to us by Jehovah to abstain from blood will save my child's present life?

One thing I find amazing is that point right after Jehovah gave the command to abstain from blood, where it said, "good health to you." It has just been in recent years that we have come to appreciate how true that statement is. How many countless millions of people have AIDS, Hepatitis, TRALI and the countless other blood borne illnesses from blood transfusions? As Jehovah's Witnesses, we have been protected from this. Why? Because we chose to obey Jehovah's Laws. We didn't know why, we just did. This reminds me so much of certain aspects of the Mosaic Law regarding cleanliness. Did they know about dysentery or other diseases back then? Did they have any idea about bacteria? No, but they obeyed Jehovah's laws on keeping the camp clean and they avoided the diseases that would have resulted. Much the same way, Jehovah's Witnesses have avoided the diseases that have resulted from blood transfusions. Simply by being obedient to Acts 15:28,29.

There are so many bloodless alternatives nowdays. Blood transfusions, as a medical practice, are rather archaic. I would rather my child receive modern treatments. We love our children and will do whatever we need to inorder to preserve their lives, except break Jehovah's laws.

Answer 3

Im noT a JW.however I have study other beliefs and theirs on this subject is due to not consenting to have blood transfusions because they think that you shouldn't interfer with Gods affairs of keeping one alive with todays technolgy and sor even yrs ago !
If It is Gods will for you to be alive then you will ,if notthen you wont !
While that maybe true in one since of the word ,God sends us DRs and gives knowledge to many in the Medical fields to help people.
He said all we would need was right before us!
Also when the Aids epdimic arose they used this on their arugments to stand firmly on their beliefs that you when you have someone elses, bl then you dont know what you will end up with.
Now that also is from some people I personal know that are of the JW persuatuion .

They are good people though maybe highly msguided!
ps God provides healing through many avenues to us .........

Answer 4

Because God (Jehovah) holds blood as sacred, A blood transfusion would violate his laws. Scriptures to back this are found at :Genesis 9:4,16, Leviticus17:14; 7:26-27 Acts 15:28-29 Acts 21:25
I would obey Gods Laws, because if a friend or family member died, or if I had a child that died I would know that Jehovah being the almighty God that he is could easily resurrect them as he says he will in the future. ( John 5:28-29)If you have more questions you can contact Jehovah's Witnesses in your area. We even have a video explaining our belief's further, I hope this helps you to understand that we are not evil people that want our children to die.

Answer 5

ACTS 15:29 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. GOOD HEALTH TO YOU!”
ACTS 15:19,20 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
• Cell Salvage- one of the most accepted techniques in blood conservation. Cell salvage technology processes and reinfuses blood shed during surgery.
• Harmonic scalpel- an ultrasonically activated instrument that allows surgeons to coagulate small and medium sized vessels. It also permits incisions with minimal tissue damage and minimal risk to the patient
• Hemodilution- involves the removal of a calculated number of units of the patients’ blood just prior to the anticipated significant surgical blood loss. After major blood loss has cease and while still in the O.R., the autologous blood units are returned to the patient
AS A RESULT OF BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

Millions have donated blood or have accepted it. For 1986-87 Canada had 1.3 million donors in a population of 25 million. “[In] the most recent year for which figures are available, between 12 million and 14 million units of blood were used in transfusions in the United States alone.”—The New York Times, February 18, 1990.

“Blood has always enjoyed a ‘magical’ quality,” notes Dr. Louise J. Keating. “For its first 46 years, the blood supply was perceived as being safer than it actually was by both physicians and the public.” (Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, May 1989) What was the situation then, and what is it now?

Even 30 years ago, pathologists and blood-bank personnel were advised: “Blood is dynamite! It can do a great deal of good or a great deal of harm. The mortality from blood transfusion equals that from ether anesthesia or appendectomy. There is said to be approximately one death in 1,000 to 3,000 or possibly 5,000 transfusions. In the London area there has been reported one death for every 13,000 bottles of blood transfused.”—New York State Journal of Medicine, January 15, 1960.

Answer 6

We as JW's seek the best medical care available. It sounds like you know some of the facts so I will just direct you to the articles which will show why, alternatives, health risks, quotes from doctors etc as well as scriptures proving that Jehovah has provided a resurrection hope for us if we stick to His Word....

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm

Answer 7

Laws given to Noah, the nation of Israel and then to Christians have been that blood is owned by God rather then Man and he says in Acts 15:20 "Abstain from blood".

Abraham believed in the resurrection of his son. (Compare Gen chapter 22) As did the Christian church:

1Cr 15:13 "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain."

Answer 8

Sorry, I am not a J/W but my mother worked in the premature nursery at a hospital told me that at first most J/W's refuse a blood transfusion on their babys, but when push came to shove and they realized that the baby will die with out it, most would give consent for the transfusion.


You can give all the thumbs down you want, but that don't change the way things REALLY are.

Answer 9

We do allow them to have transfusions—the safer kind. We accept the kind of transfusions that don’t carry the risk of such things as AIDS, hepatitis, and malaria. We want the best treatment for our children, as I am sure that any loving parent would.
When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. No doubt you realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. When much blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed. Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these. ‘Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.’ Even more important to us is what the Bible itself says at Acts 15:28, 29.
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.) Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.

Answer 10

In most cases like this, a court order will supersede a parent's religious beliefs. You can choose to withhold medical treatment for a child as long as their health is not seriously threatened by doing so. This question is purely hypothetical, because this kind of situation doesn't happen in reality (where this child would be allowed to die). In the case where no hospital/ doctor was made aware and the child did die, parents would be held criminally liable.