The Jehovahs Witnesses say that the mother who died...?

Question

made the choice for herself not to have a blood transfusion. Well what about the children, do they have a choice whether or not they have a blood transfusion.

Do the children of Witnesses have a choice.

Achtung
You show the smug indifference that we know to be true of the Jehovahs Witnesses

If a child dies as a result of parents refusing them a blood transfusion, then the parents are as guilty of murder the same as if they had shot them.

Something must be done about this cult, we have had enough of them. They are a cancer on society. Governments must take a stand against them like the Tajikistan government has done and ban them.

conundrum
The Witnesses allowed Blood transfusions up till around 1960. So does that mean Jehovah and the bible misled your organisation for 80 years!!!

If there was a jehovah, he would surely be embarrassed by the Watchtower organisation.

Answer 1

i just have to answer this the same over again Witnesses please read my point and actually think about it for just a second :


I'm sorry Witnesses you are so deeply deceived on this issue it just upsets me.

You misinterpret a script from the bible that is clearly talking about diet to place yourselves separate from a population ( BTW classic cult control behaviour)

The real problem is that when you actually look at the policies you will realize how silly and hypocritical they are;

Simple Example

Deuteronomy 12:16
But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water.

Yet you are allowed to take individual blood components (albumin, globulin, clotting factors, fibrin)

All derived from Stored Blood .

If you actually believed what you constantly claim you must refuse all Blood. Meaning you must refuse the following

All blood parts
All Blood “replacements”: all are derived from stored blood
All Transplants: all organs contain significant amount of blood
All non kosher meat

so its ok for others to donate blood, and for you to consuming but not ok for you to contribute to your fellow man.
Thus you live on the Blood of others as a parasite eating the blood of its hosts

Answer 2

The issue is not nearly as critical for children because the Courts can be brought in to over-ride parental decisions in the case of minors. However, it gets serious when teenage JWs follow JW instructions about refusing certain 'disapproved' blood treatments. They have invariably been indoctrinated with the interpretations of a handful of men in New York about a handful of scriptures. Not knowing any better, they seek to please their superiors and insist they don't want the treatments either.

Actually, the only choice any JW has on the matter is to follow Society 'guidelines' or be treated as a leper by fellow JWs. As most of them have absolutely no friends outside the religion, and they are utterly convinced Armageddon is imminent (and they'll die, never to be resurrected, if they do anything wrong) this is a heavy form of sanction. Fear plays a huge part although all good JWs will insist they freely agree with the Wt.Soc's interpretations and there's only fear of displeasing Jehovah. See how they equate their leaders' interpretations with Jehovah God? Yet those mens' interpretations on blood have been changing from the early 1960s when they said it was a disfellowshipping 'crime'. Today the goal-posts have been moved so far apart, JWs can accept every single fraction of blood individually, just so long as they are not held together in the 'skin' of whole blood!

Answer 3

There must be more to this than what you have typed. It's really up to the widower to decide the funeral arrangements and conduct. Whether a cross can be present or not. If he's not around for some reason, then it's up to the children. Her brother is actually down the list so to speak and is stepping out of bounds. Unless, like I said, there is more to this than what you may be aware of . BTW, Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed christian. They just simply know the truth about the cross, and how it infiltrated into worship.

Answer 4

Everyone makes Choices based on their understanding of the scriptures. When life and death issues arise it is up to the individual to make their own decision as to whether this pleases God or Not. The point being; is your Faith and Trust in God so Strong, so Secure that you are willing to believe that no matter the outcome you believe that you did the right thing. Jehovah's Witnesses stand out as unique and often receive bad publicity because of their not accepting blood transfusions. This position, however, is solidly based on the Bible. It shows that God condemns the misuse of blood, since blood is precious in his eyes.As a result of examining the Scriptures on this subject, Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude that the Bible’s directive to ‘abstain from blood’ would clearly include the modern practice of transfusing blood.—Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29.

Answer 5

No the Children of Witnesses do not have a choice...It is up to the members of the family to keep a close eye on the Kids, and intervene medically and legally if the parents choose to deny medical treatment to the Children...This is also one reason why Witnesses keep apart from families.

What is it going to take for people to realise that this is a cult.?

Answer 6

I am not a Jehovah's Witnesses, but the law in the UK states that capable adults may refuse treatment at anytime without giving a reason.... (DOH Guidelines), but children are treated differently and a doctor may chose to go against a parents wishes and treat a child if they think it is the child's best interest's...

Answer 7

Yes, of course the children among Jehovah's Witnesses have an active role in choosing their own medical treatment.

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. Children as young as eight and ten years have demonstrated the capacity to make such an informed choice.

So who should make such a decision for a three-year-old, regarding which medical alternative should be used?

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 8

No they dont but in most cases the doctors can get a court order to override the parents refusal.

Answer 9

depraved indifference and neglect...


I remember as a kid hearing my aunt and grandmother and some other women talking up a storm about something like that...

Some woman had refused a blood transfusion after child birth, etc....left 5 or 6 children , a new born, and a very confused and hurt husband....

what I got out of that "storm"... they considered she( in a sense) walked out/abandoned her husband and children by committing suicide by refusing medical help that was available ...that was hooked up and ready!! she pulled out the IV for the transfusion while her husband was trying to fight for her life...

Answer 10

I find this whole subject beyond belief, that in the 21st century people are making life and death decisions based on an interpretation of an eclectic bunch of writings some 2000+ yeras old that could not have forseen the advances in medical (or any other) technolgy. I grieve for the children deprived of their mother and pity those who try to defend her decision to commit suicide for religious reasons so-called.