Jehovahs witnessess -DO not just watch their kids die!?

Question

People dont realise but jws LOVE their kids like everyone else. and believe in the ressurection hope.The commandment is the bible is abstain from blood as its sacred. to God. My mate was a jw but his parents werent. he was sick went into a coma and his parents asked for a emergency blood transfusion WITHOUT his consent which he would NOT have agreed to. he DIED because the blood given to him was infected!! If he would have had the alternatives the embarrased doctor said he would HAVE lived!!!! Theyre are tons of other blood alternatives out there that they use that are much cleaner and continously save thousands of jw's lives and other peoples lives day in day out. Pity the press never write that! Whoever say jw;s let their kids die cos their brainwashed is unbelievably ignorant!!

please read joslin report below for indepth info.

PLEASE READ SWEETPEAS VERDICT TOO!!! THANKYOU

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.

It is sad when those who have theological differences with the Witnesses actively work to spread misinformation about their beliefs. 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/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

Ok this is for all who doubt the witnesses' believe about the blood transfusions being bad for our health and spirituallity.

Everyone agrees that the best people on Earth to know what's best for our health is Doctors, correct?

Now the person that knows what's best for all human kind is God, correct?-even if this goes against what the doctors say. Why because the doctors are just humans like us. While God is the creator of everything in this universe. Therefore he should be heard more than what any doctor says. The bible says, 'stay away from blood', 'don't eat blood.' -And some say well blood transfusions don't really consist in eating blood.-
OK, but if a doctor says to an alcoholic, 'stay away from alcohol', 'don't drink alcohol,' and the alcoholic doesn't do any of these things but recieves an alcohol transfusion or inserts it through his vains. Does this mean he's obeying the doctor. The answer is obvious.

And for those who say that blood transfusions are the most safest, or not that dangerous and cheap. Your half right, they are cheap. And as the saying goes, 'you get what you pay for.'
The half wrong is that many doctors and institutions agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, about this subject. Blood transfusions are being used alot less due to recent discoveries of other alternatives. Another discovery is that alot of doctors that prefer using blood only use it so they can be legally ok, or so they won't risk being sued, eventhough they agree that it's not the best solution.

Many want believe me, like always but you can google this and see it for yourselves.

Here is my question, Who love their children most?
1-The Jehovah's Witnesses that IF their kids die because they didn't recieve blood trans., but now that they pleased God and they have a chance to see them once again in the paradise he promises. OR....
2-Those who say they are Christians and yet let there kids go to die for the country(or president in most cases that they didn't even vote for) and are practically killing and disobeying God, by not loving thy neighbor. The most probable thing that the kid is doing is killing another of his brothers of the same faith. And if the kid dies. The mother thinks he goes to heaven, a belief that is not based on the bible. Think About It.

Answer 3

Isn't it a pity that people don't look at others. What about the thousands of people who die because they HAD blood. Yet when the odd incident occurs like the mother of two dies, it makes the headlines. What about headlines like = " Catholic dies because he took a blood transfusion." or "Mother forced child to have blood and it died".
I was a nurse and I know that people have claimed to be JWs so as NOT to have blood transfusions.
I'm sure, if a Doctor came to a patient and told him that he was going to give him poison, the patient would be up in arms over it, yet what is blood? To the body it doesn't come from, it is like a foreign body, and the human body is made to reject anything that is not of its makeup. This is why some people who have blood transfusions are so ill, because the body is rejecting the blood. While those who do not have transfusions are up and about within days. People even have open heart surgery without blood.
With regard to the mother who died. There may well be some other reason why she died. Neglect on the part of the medical staff is a possibility, perhaps not checking her blood pressure, or even maybe a cut that was not noticed. Usually, if a woman dies giving birth, she has a bad time and is ill during the birthing. There are many reasons why this happened. But it could have been avoided by the medical profession. There are alternatives to blood transfusions. If God intended people to have blood, he would have given permission, just as he did with regard to the eating of meat after the flood. Instead, he said that blood was to be "poured out".
As you say, the Press never give the whole story and there are many alternatives that can be used that serve the same purpose.
I have just heard the latest update on the mother. Apparently, the hospital says, a blood transfusion would NOT have saved her. She gave birth on 25 October. Plus, the local congregation gave the hospital a blood salvage machine in July. The Hospital is having an internal review of the situation, because it is a rare case.

Answer 4

There is one too many presumptions here.

The THE JW PRESUME they have hope of resurrection. doctor presumed he could have lived, if he had alternative; not realizing that the chap had his appointment with his Creator. Even if there had been substitute, do you really think he made it, if the LORD of heaven and earth had an appointment with him?

The JW's called themselves Jehovah Witnesses, because they claimed that their origin and receive the mandate from Isaiah 43......Isa 43:10 Ye are My witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me......

They believe Jehovah is God the Father, and Jesus Christ is not co-equal & co-eternal with the Father.However, let us see even from a favourite Psalm

Psa 23:1 The LORD (ie Jehovah) is my Shepherd; I shall not want.

If you actually analyze the first verse in Psalm 23 (a well known which is written by King David), the LORD Jehovah is the Shepherd.

Who is this LORD, ie Jehovah? Is He God the Father or is He God the Son? A well versed five year old may already able to identify who Jehovah and the Shepherd is. Any adult with an ounce of uprightness and a modicum of evangelical integrity arising from a evangelically converted heart would have acknowledge that Jehovah (ie the LORD) is NONE OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST, the blessed Second Person of the Godhead - is the Shepherd.

Perhaps, some in this forum may want further proof, which is amply furnished here, who the Shepherd is, who is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ as He is identified:

Joh 10:11
I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.

Joh 10:14
I am the good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine.

Heb 13:20
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

1Pe 2:21-25
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: ….but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.


Thus if any JW doth hath an ounce of uprightness and a modicum of evangelical integrity arising from a evangelically converted heart may want to repent uprightly to understand Psalm 23 correctly;



Jehovah is my Shepherd (ie Jesus Christ) ………
and so, Jehovah is the Shepherd and the conclusion is VERY CLEAR (ie the Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah, co equal, co-eternal with the Father).




If the JW cannot see this, how then can they see their deviant heretical, cultic and Satanic practice of refusal of blood transfusion? Still not brainwashed by Satan? Alas, perhaps, you are not discerning it all spiritually and doctrinally, but emotionally. IT IS SO OBVIOUS. Thus, there will be more orphans, more heart aches, and the only persons who rejoice is the evil trinity (Rev 16:13) that energise these heresies (Guess unto whose domain doth CT Russell fall, namely the dragon, the beast or the false prophet?).


A more detailed dealing of who Jehovah, the origin of the use of Jehovah Witness (ie from the book of Isaiah) may be seen here
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071105052320AA8wf36&cp=2


If you really care, and really want to save your JW friends, you need to be grounded and rooted in the doctrines of Christ and Biblical exposition.



.

Answer 5

I totally agree with you Sweat Pea and Joslin.

Why risk your life to have "life saving blood" to save your life? Many die from just having a transfusion, not from refusing it. And If it ever came down to where choosing blood or refusing blood I would rather refuse blood because I would be obeying God's command in abstaining from blood. Even if I did die from not having a transfusion I know I will be resurrected in the new system. Also saying no to a transfusion is a conscious weighing matter. Would refusing blood make Jehovah happy or would it make him unhappy when receiveing blood? That is the question you should be asking yourselves! But here's the answer it makes Jehovah happy when you obey his command!

2007 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
published 2007
Latvia
Christian Faith put to the test
The Blood issue has also tested the integrity of some. On September 6, 1996, Yelena Godlevskaya, a 17 year old girl who was hit by a car, suffered multiple fractures to the pelvis. Spiritually mature, Yelena had determined in her heart to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:29) Back then, most doctors in Latvia were unfamiliar with nonblood techniques, so the attending doctors refused to preform corrective surgery. Then about a week later, two doctors cruelly forced a blood transfusion on Yelena late one night, and she died.

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Blood

Blood Transfusions
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 indirect 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?

How Can Blood Save Your Life?
Blood Transfusions—How Safe?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_02.htm

Videos:
Transfusion-Alternative Health Care—Meeting Patient Needs and Rights
http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcnr/article_01.htm

Answer 6

Yes, one rarely hears of the people who die because the blood transfusions they received were tainted with pathogens, including hepatitis and AIDS. All the testing in the world has not made blood transfusion 100% safe.

Enlightened doctors and hospitals in many parts of the world are aware of the benefits of bloodless surgery.

Blood transfusions are really like an organ transplant. People have the right to refuse them for whatever reason.

Funny how so many people who claim to believe in God find it strange that anyone would sacrifice life in this world for Him, if it came to that. But for many people, it is bloodless medicine that has been life-saving, not blood transfusions.

Answer 7

I am so sorry to hear that sweetie. that is so terrible. i agree with you... what guarentee can doctors really give that a person will live with a blood transfusion? i would rather die of blood loss then to have the guilt and shame of ingesting something so sacred to God, and on top of that the high chances of it being infected!!!! gross!!!

Answer 8

Ignorance is bliss and I'm sure plenty of people float on clouds... Of course the blood transfusion issue is just another convenient reason for others to point fingers at us.

Answer 9

I'm a JW, and I love that you put this because people are always saying false things about us. Hopefully this will open their eyes and they will switch to using the alternative ways as well.

Answer 10

Blood transfusions are now comprehensively screened and the chances of being infected from it in a developed country are very, very low. My mother is one of the people who does this, in fact, and I've been to the laboratory - the tests just went on and on...
Blood may be sacred, but isn't human life as well? Blood transfusions are needed for operations and emergencies, and blood loss can quickly kill a person.
And what of autologous donations? You guys prohibit that as well, but, uh... it's your own blood?

As to people who had transfusions and died - ever stop to think that they might have died from another cause? It isn't necessarily a miracle cure, it's just an enormous help in sustaining a person's vitals while they're patched up by surgeons.

What blood alternatives are there? Most transfusions are derived from blood in some way or another - different bits of it can be taken out and used, it's not necessarily whole blood.

You have to be practical. Refusing modern-day medical treatment on some religious ground is crazy.

Answer 11

--BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS ARE LETHAL!

*** g97 2/8 p. 29,28 Watching the World ***
.....Dr. David Crombie, Jr., chief of surgery at Hartford Hospital, candidly admits: “I was raised in medicine at a time when blood was thought of as a tonic. Now it’s thought to be A POISON .”(my caps)
***Bloodless Surgery Gains Momentum
--In late 1996 a hospital in Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A., joined 56 others across the country that have “bloodless centers for Jehovah’s Witnesses,” reported The Hartford Courant. “After studying the idea, hospital administrators realized that the wishes of Jehovah’s Witnesses were no longer so different from those of most other patients.” With the aid of drugs and advanced surgical techniques, doctors perform organ transplants and joint replacement as well as open-heart, cancer, and other surgeries—all without the use of blood. In addition, many health-care professionals now openly acknowledge the dangers of receiving a blood transfusion....

*** w90 7/15 p. 30 Insight on the News ***
**Most Dangerous Substance”
--Lawsuits filed by patients who have contracted a deadly disease via blood transfusions have introduced a new level of concern to many blood banks. By mid 1989 upwards of 300 lawsuits had reportedly been filed against blood banks in the United States. Gilbert Clark, executive director of the American Association of Blood Banks, acknowledged that “the public wants perfectly safe blood,” but he admitted that it cannot be guaranteed.
--Similarly, The Boston Globe Magazine reports that blood specialist Dr. Charles Huggins admits that blood “must be considered UNAVOIDABLY NON-SAFE (my caps).” He describes blood as “the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.” Since early 1989 the number of infectious diseases blood banks typically test for has increased to five (HTLV-I, associated with adult T-cell leukemia, syphilis, hepatitis B, AIDS, and hepatitis C).
--However, according to AMERICAN RED CROSS authority S. Gerald Sandler, “it seems that it’s only a matter of time until we find another rare disease SPREAD BY BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS.”(my caps) Despite such lethal potential, about four million North Americans are expected to receive blood transfusions during 1990."

*** g96 2/8 p. 29 Watching the World ***

Commenting on the shocking situation that put profits above personal health, Luigi Pintor, editor of the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, began his article with these words: “BLESSED ARE (my caps) Jehovah’s Witnesses, who . . . refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. As they read the newspapers these days, they will be the only ones who will not have to worry about what is going on . . . in the blood industries and clinics that sell and administer blood, plasma, and related derivatives to their fellowmen.”

--COMMENTS BY THE LEGAL WORLD:

*** g00 1/8 p. 11 The Growing Demand for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery ***

Presently, more than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery. “Not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses’ Hospital Liaison Committees,” notes Dr. Charles Baron, a professor at Boston College Law School.