What do you think about the JW that refused a blood transfusion in childbirth and died?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

Answer 1

Death is unnatural, and saddens every reasonable person. It seems crass, however, when a handful of angry activists work to turn a tragic death into a platform for their opinionated rantings.


This tragedy occurred nearly two weeks ago, on October 25, 2007. Despite what pro-blood activists and anti-Witness critics might pretend, her doctors informed the family that Mrs. Gough would have died even if she had received blood transfusions.

That's little consolation, but it is unsurprising.

During a hemorrhagic event, artificial expanders almost always work better than blood itself at keeping veins and arteries from collapsing. In addition, targeted treatment of specific blood fractions is considered preferable to old-fashioned "throw everything at it and see what sticks" thinking of whole blood transfusions. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses generally accept artificial products and fractions derived from plasma, platelets, and red/white cells.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses only refuse whole blood and its four major components, doctors still have many many proven products and techniques. In fact, many or most doctors have come to prefer these products and techniques for ALL their patients.


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

If she wanted to refuse the blood tranfusion and die then that is her decision. However, I don't agree with the fact that they will let their child die by refusing a transfusion. Several years ago in Canada this happened and the doctors got a court order forcing them to let the child have the transfusion.

My grandparents were JW's and my poor mother had a terrible childhood because of it. She never had any toys or birthday or Christmas celebrations. She was dragged to the ridiculous meetings and dragged along on the Saturday pounding on doors for new recruits. When she old enough she left home and now is considered swine by the JW's and my grandparents because she nor her husband and children are believers. One day my grandparents were babysitting my 3 yr old brother and it was time to go to the meeting. They couldn't find him anywhere and went to the meeting anyway leaving him alone in the city where anything could have happened but luckily it didn't.

They don't sound very christian to me.

Answer 3

This is one of the reasons that I have such a problem with religion - when they can't just live their lifes because of the rules and laws that their chosen religion determines and you end up with unnecessary situations like this.

If they want to believe in god and what-not then fair enough but this is taking things way too far. Instead of being a caring person she was obviously a very selfish person and I feel so sorry for those babies who unfortunately will probably be brought up in the same warped way that their mother was.

Answer 4

Anyone has, and indeed should have, the right to refuse any medical intervention they see fit..

To us blood transfusions are commonplace but when you think of the actual reality it is not a small thing. Having total strangers' blood transfused into you. Haemophiliacs have been given aids by using infected blood products, so there is an obvious risk involved. I would prefer to make up my own mind about this, and not be dictated to by a religion, however as some people are willing to have their thinking done for them, it's up to them.

Taking the argument one step further is the question of organ transplants. I would be willing to donate a kidney to my family but I would never donate, nor would I accept, an organ from anyone else. Sometimes you just have to accept that death is inevitable. Maintain your beliefs, courage and dignity.

Answer 5

JW doctrine once did not allow vaccinations, then they changed it and now can have vaccinations, also they did not allow organ transplants then they changed it and now they are allowed organ transplants. At the moment they are on course for changing their position on blood transfusions, as witnesses are allowed to have certain blood parts, in fact they are allowed to have all of the blood parts separately, however not all at the same time!!! There is surely a case for manslaughter charges to be brought against the Governing body of JWs. But still the Governing body does not care how many people have already died or who will die in the future (children included) just as long as the faithful keep on bringing the money in for them. It is an outrage.

When you have been brainwashed into believing that the end of the world is imminent and the only way that a person can get into the Kingdom of God is by becoming a JW then that person is no longer responsible for their decision making. They are too terrified to make their own decisions and so just make the decisions that they think the JWs would say was the right one.

Answer 6

So many think it is shameful to have a faith that means more than life.That is truly shameful.
If a man takes life in war then gives his life for his country he is considered a hero and yet if someone loses his life in these circumstances they are abused, go figure.

You are assuming that a blood transfusion would have saved her life; you do not know that. There are other transfusions which where no doubt tried but which also failed.

How many people die in childbirth despite having bloodtransfusions?

There seems to be a lot of Daily Mail readers out there.

Answer 7

I'm all for people having the right to refuse treatment for their religion (but personally think it was a very tragic decision that could have turned out so differently) but I'm left wondering, if in 5/10 years time when the poor babies of this family are asking for their mother, how the father and grandparents are going to explain that they haven't got a mother, and they have missed out on so much love, because their "god" is against medical (and life saving) treatments like this
im not saying its wrong to follow religion or to do whatever you want with your life but surely it isn't right to deny to babies the right of knowing their mother

Answer 8

This has happened before when a woman had twins and refused a blood transfusion, her husband wanted his wife to have it but she refused believing God would save her, and she died leaving twins without a mother.Cant the doctors get a court order to give blood if it meant life or death.They are brainwashed into thinking god will save them, i would say this is a cult not religion.

Answer 9

I recall a mother of one of the girls I was in school with back in the early 80's.She too refused a blood transfusion after an operation and died.I don't understand their way of thinking with the JW's but I respect it as their right if that's what they want.
EDIT:I had a healthy and a diseased breast removed because I wanted the best chance possible to see my kids grow up when I was diagnosed with b/c in 2005.I'll go through anything to be there for my kids.

Answer 10

While I agree with Blueridgeliving's opinion that people should be allowed their religious beliefs. I disagree totally that these beliefs should be forced on to innocent children. In my opinion they should be charged with murder.

The belief is extremely stupid anyway, because it stems from a misinterpretation of Leviticus 17.14 in the bible which relates to the eating of blood (from sacrifices) .There were no transfusions around in Leviticus's day.