Jehovahs witness?

Question

how can this be called human please read the story
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071105/tuk-uk-britain-jehovah-fa6b408_4.html

Answer 1

Hmm, let's see....the bible was written around 2000 years ago, and blood transfusions have been around for roughly 90 years; yet at some point these cretins have decided that the bible forbids blood tranfusions. You are wasting your time trying to reason with these bigoted,pious,self-righteous, ignorant, blinkered zealots. They are without doubt the most detestable and shallow religious cult in existence today. They deny their own history, they deny their own family healthcare, they deny any semblance of logic or reason. They believe in resurrection; enough said.
I have been a blood donor for 20 years and will continue to be one as long as I am fit and able to do so. If even one of the pints of blood I've given has helped someone who needed it then I will be a very happy man.

Answer 2

If you had of read the whole BBC news article (the original source) it said that a blood transfusion would NOT have saved her life anyway.

This means that the whole issue is mute.

Of course that wont stop the ones sensationalizing the whole thing and trying to hang the blame on the Jehovah Witnesses.

The fact is (and ALL people that have an operation must face) that sometimes things go wrong , and when they go wrong , there is often nothing that can be done.

Additionally it must also be recognized that Jehovah's Witnesses have fought hard for the medical rights and freedom that YOU yourself enjoy today.

Answer 3

people makes choices about life and death everyday.....
I am not a Jehovah's Witness but I believe in choice. The law protects people who chose to refuse medical treatment for whatever reason .... this is the 21st century we do not forcefully administer treatments to people against their will....
her reasons and the fact that she left two children behind may not not fit with your view of morality but I am very sure you would be the first complaining if you did not wish some treatment lifesaving or otherwise and it was forced on you....

The law is there to allow free will ... she chose something different to the other 99.9% of the population, that does not mean she is not human ......

Answer 4

My suggestion is that if you really want an answer or understanding of that belief, contact your local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and ask them. There will be no obligation and no charge and you can the information directly from the source.

Answer 5

Death is unnatural, and saddens every reasonable person. It seems crass, however, to turn a tragic death into a platform for one's 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 6

That's a weird belief to uphold. They're entitled to do what they like, but what a waste of a young life that could have easily been prevented. Next time they come knocking at my door, I shall ask them, before telling them to go away because they're interrupting Coronation Street.

Answer 7

They have a distorted view of the scriptures and are lead by a certain few as to what they are to believe in however their views often change according to new light!

Answer 8

a lot of JWs on this board say accepting blood transfusions is a matter for their conscience. If that's true, why not take them when faced with certain death, otherwise?

Answer 9

JW are typical of all Fudamentalist religions Deluded,Dangerous, and Controlling avoid them like the Plague.

Answer 10

I asked the very same question earlier:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhVl8ByqEQ0ZVRIb2iA9HwTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071105011838AAMXeHv

You won't get a straight answer.
Those poor kids, growing up without a mother...