Why are Jehovah's Witnesses against certain medical interventions, specifically the use of blood products?

Question

I am writing a research paper on Jehovah's Witnesses and their general mistrust of medical intervention and use of blood products. I am not passing judgement of any kind. I just want to learn more about their perspective on this subject.

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.

The fact is that 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

The respect for life shown by Jehovah’s Witnesses has also affected their attitude toward blood transfusions. It showed that both animal blood and that of humans were included in the divine prohibition that was made binding on Noah and all his descendants. (Gen. 9:3-6) It pointed out that this requirement was emphasized again in the first century in the command that Christians ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:28, 29) That same article made it clear from the Scriptures that only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God, and that since the animal sacrifices offered under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ, disregard for the requirement that Christians ‘abstain from blood’ would be an evidence of gross disrespect for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Lev. 17:11, 12; Heb. 9:11-14, 22)


There is so much a doctor can do to avoid blood. Doctors are quick to use blood because of the $$$, not to save lives. Research the internet and you'll see that many non-JW's refuse blood as well, but for a different reason. Here are just a FEW things that can be used as an alternative to transfusions.

Fluids: Ringer’s lactate solution, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, and others are used to maintain blood volume, preventing hypovolemic shock. Some fluids now being tested can transport oxygen.

Drugs: Genetically engineered proteins can stimulate the production of red blood cells (erythropoietin), blood platelets (interleukin-11), and various white blood cells (GM-CSF, G-CSF). Other medications greatly reduce blood loss during surgery (aprotinin, antifibrinolytics) or help to reduce acute bleeding (desmopressin).

Biological hemostats: Collagen and cellulose woven pads are used to stop bleeding by direct application. Fibrin glues and sealants can plug puncture wounds or cover large areas of bleeding tissue.

Blood salvage: Salvaging machines recover blood that is lost during surgery or trauma. The blood is cleansed and can be returned to the patient in a closed circuit. In extreme cases, liters of blood can be recovered using such a system.

Surgical tools: Some devices cut and seal blood vessels simultaneously. Other devices can seal bleeding on large areas of tissue. Laparoscopic and minimally invasive instruments allow surgeries to be performed without the blood loss associated with large incisions.

Surgical techniques: Thorough operative planning, including consultation with experienced clinicians, helps the surgical team to avoid complications. Prompt action to stop bleeding is essential. Delays greater than 24 hours can greatly increase patient mortality. Dividing large surgeries into several smaller ones decreases total blood loss.

Answer 3

Jehovah Witnesses do not have a general mistrust for medical intervention. They do have an issue with blood and blood-borne products, because it is written that God's people are to abstain from consuming blood...which is why blood transfusions are a no-no. If you really want to consider the issue of blood, all one has to do is look at history and see that many major diseases are carried in the blood (AIDS, Hep A, B, C, etc). Likewise, the issue regarding Jews not eating pork, etc. is also based on a health issue (pork carries trichinosis that is passed onto unsuspecting diners when they consume undercooked pig). Back to Jehovah Witnesses, rather than blood-transfusions, they opt for blood extenders which is basically like adding water to a too thick soup. I hope I helped.

Answer 4

Well your research paper is off to a false premise. Jehovah's Witnesses are not against medical intervention.

We do not accept blood transfusions.

Answer 5

In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?

Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.

Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”

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 6

I am one of Jehovahs wittnesses. First off we do not reject medical treatment. We do reject blood however, the Bible says keep abstaining from Blood and so we do. If you woould like more info go to www.jwmedia.org or www.watchtower.org hope this helped if you need more just ask adn hope you get an A on the report

Answer 7

it is not that we reject medical help, it is just that we do not want to take blood, first of all the bible tells us to abstain from blood,in acts 15:19,20- (Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood)

and second for our safety: we here so many stories about how people have died from getting the wrong blood or just not not responding to the blood even if it is the right kind.

i hope my information helped you, I'm still kind of new(7 years) , but love to tell others about us.

Answer 8

first place if I was in a religion that did not allow me or my family to go to a doctor, I would never join it. Jehovah wants us to get the best care for our families. as far as blood, even if I was not a Jehovah Witness I would never take of blood. it is special to Jehovah God. see our website on blood at www.watchtower.org

Answer 9

Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’

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.)

Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?

Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?

Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.

Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”

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

I have to run, can't answer in detail, but I am sure the ones to write after me will include more detail.

We are not against medicine in itself (as some say), in fact many among us are in the medical profession.

We are against any medical practices that go against Bible laws or principles. That includes blood transfusions and spiritistic healing. (Acts 15:28,29; Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

Learn more:
www.watchtower.org

Answer 11

I only studied with them, I'm not actually a JW. But I know the answer to this question..

It's because they interpret certain Bible passages about blood, in a very literal way. Too literal. The Bible passages in question are about not eating animal blood in meat. You have to give back the animal's blood to God. The blood is a SYMBOL of the animal's life.

God said its OK to kill animals, but "You must not murder" is the law that applies to people, That means that instead of giving back the SYMBOL of life to God, you have to give back his life instead. You do that by not murdering him. You don't take a person's life if you take his blood for a transfusion - and that's what the issue is all about. It's not about the blood, it's about the life.

It's ridiculous to try to apply the instructions for eating animals, to humans, in the same way.

Except for that, I don't think they are against medical treatment. Not long ago, I saw a show on TV where one of them had a transplant. (I think it was a liver - and it had blood in it! .

Edited to address "pour it on the ground"

Achtungs' reference to the command to "pour out the blood on the ground" illustrates what I said about the overly literal interpretation of Bible passages. This command was strictly in reference to animals slaughtered to be eaten. Since humans were not to be killed and eaten, there wouldn't be any blood to be poured out on the ground. In fact, for a human to "pour out" another person's blood is usually called murder. Unlike animals, human blood is NOT to be poured out.