Jehovah's Witness - who would look after the children if her husband was dead............?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7078673.stm

I don't care what anyone says, putting your faith in ancient superstitious nonsense ahead of your own children is irresponsible.

If we all did that, the world would be full of feral children, with no adults to guide them, and eventually humans would likely become extinct.

Madness.

Answer 1

It gets worse...If those children ever need a blood transfusion, Guess what??? Yep, you got it...More death.


Hypocrite Watchtower Society allows Bulgarian Witnesses to have Blood transfusions.





Jehovah's Witnesses: Bulgaria and Blood
By Jason Barker

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion “may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian” (Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, p. 55; emphasis added). Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion (Ibid., p. 54), but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood (Watchtower, February 15, 1964, p. 127). In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:

I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives. (card on file)
The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28–29. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously (Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, p. 18).

A large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower’s regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah’s Witnesses take the Society’s prohibition, Paul Blizard tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, “I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood” (Witnesses of Jehovah, p. 197). Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion (Ibid.).

News from Bulgaria

On March 9, 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights accepted a settlement between the government of Bulgaria and the Christian Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in which Bulgaria, in exchange for a significant concession from the Witnesses, agreed to recognize the Witnesses as an official religious organization.

The Bulgarian government, in order to reach an agreement, will now provide civilian service for conscientious objectors to military service (Information Note No. 148, ). The compromise made by the Society is far more noteworthy. The Society agreed, regarding blood transfusions, that “members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association” (Ibid.; emphases added).

A press release distributed in 1997 by the Commission clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society’s stated position:

In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah’s Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah’s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ‘public health’ (Press Communiqué Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, ; emphasis added).
This concession seems to be a remarkable reversal of Watchtower doctrine, raising the question: will Jehovah’s Witnesses now be allowed to receive blood transfusions, or was the Society disingenuous in its agreement?

Answer 2

Though we may disagree with it, it was her belief, and she had the right to follow her beliefs. In this country the law says that a person is free to follow whatever belief system they choose and the religious rights must be respected. It is different in some other countries where everyone must follow one religion. Imagine that? Her children will be brought up by her husband, or other family members, with alot of help and support from the Jehovah's witness community. She had the right to make her decision, and disagreeing with her now, when she's gone, is pointless and offensive to her and her family. Also, they will accept an artificial blood that is available and works, it's not in use because it's 'too expensive'. So, if anyone's irresponsible, it's the government. Why couldn't she be given the artificial blood? A forward thinking country would have it available for such emergencies.

Answer 3

All I have to say is that was her personal decision, and her family supported her wishes. And who are we to question her or her family, that is not our business. We are in no place to question anything, we don't no the whole situation and we don't know her. The world is not full of feral children and that's all that matters. Who are you to question her faith? And the world is not extinct and I seriously doubt that it ever will be. This is madness!

Edit: And if the bible says don't eat blood what makes you think that God would want you to shoot it up your veins? Isn't that worse?

Answer 4

The 1st century is hardly 'ancient' and it wasn't a superstition, it was a command. The medical community realises now, after many people have suffered and died as a result of blood transfusions, that it is not the saftest form of treatment.

I really do doubt that this Witness would have been told: "If you take blood you'll live, if you don't, you'll die."

Medical staff know what treatments are acceptable to the Witnesses, so she was in the best place. If those altrernatives failed to save her, a blood transfusion would have been equally useless and she would have broken God's command on the matter.

Even people who do not believe the Bible to be the word of God refuse to take blood transfusions. Even doctors and surgeons who may be happy to prescribe and administer a transfusion to you may not be happy to take one themselves or have one carried out on a member of their immediate family. They know the risks. Jehovah's Witnesses also make an informed choice. The choice isn't wether to live or die, but what else is available other than blood?

A blood transfusion could be likened to playing a kind of medical Russian roulette. How can someone be sure that the blood they are about to receive has been screened properly? How can they be sure that human error will not lead to the wrong type of blood being given?

The BBC News article, probably written by an anti-Witness, failed to quote the correct scripture and provided false information about alternative treatments.

-----------

Wondering Faith - the verse says: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves 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 and from fornication." (Acts 15:28, 29)

It does not say 'do not eat', it says 'abstain'.

---------

Wondering - I've read the Bible and Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29 all appear in it, not just The Watchtower. Abstain means 'refrain from.'

"As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people." (Leviticus 17:10). Note: "ANY sort of blood." Thanks for the reminder.

Answer 5

It is called choice, ok she chose something based on her religious views and many people would have chosen another way ......
It might not fit with your view of the world or morality but she made a choice and in UK law it is allowed.... we do not force people to undertake medical procedures and treatments against their will if they are capable adults, even if it leaves behind a family....
I am not a JW but I am pro choice, people make decisions everyday about refusing or accepting life saving treatment, mother, fathers, everyone, and their decisions are based on a whole raft of reasons... the human psyche is a strange thing

Answer 6

I suppose that some admiration is due to somebody who is prepared to die for what they believe in, but I cannot respect what this woman or her husband believe.

It is inconceivable to me that any religion would consider this is the right choice if the children must now grow up without their mother.

If the husband in this case ever loses his faith, he may well carry a great burden of guilt.

However, I wonder if this could have been avoided. I have heard that sometimes JWs, in anticipation of the need, sometimes have their own blood drawn and stored in preparation for an operation.

I have no idea whether there was any expectation prior to the birth that there would be such a need, but it seems a shame it could not be anticipated.

Answer 7

I expect the local Kingdom Hall Witnesses will rally round and support as best they can. Any grandparents (JWs or not) will also try to help, though the JWs are good at closing ranks in such situations and they will be most anxious to get those twins brought up as JWs. It's the poor husband my heart aches for. He's got to live with himself. He could have over-turned his dying wife's decision not to have transfusions. He decided to respect her wishes. Noble? Or a form of madness? What are his new-born twins going to grow up to think of him, once (or, if) they can think for themselves?

As long as the husband remains a JW, he will be convinced he took the right decision. All JWs will encourage him and assure him he was right. But if he later leaves the religion.... well, I pray to God he leaves for the right reasons - discovering Watchtower Society leaders are fallible men who keep moving the goal-posts on doctrines, especially the blood doctrine. I pray he will cast himself on God who will show him that salvation only comes by putting faith (trust) in what Christ did to save sinners - not in making the symbol for the sanctity of life (blood) more important than life itself. If the husband can be forgiven by God and saved from his sin, then there is a chance for the children to be saved from Watchtower Society indoctrination.

Answer 8

My brother(first answerer) has answered well. A question to you- have you EVER seen one of Jehovah's Witnesses trawling the streets, begging for food? I've travelled a lot and know from experience that Witnesses take good care of their own.

I personally have been taken in temporarily by Witnesses in many places.

John 13:35- By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”

EDIT: As someone elsewhere wondered- who takes care of the orphans of the soldiers out there in ..........? I guess I'll do some research on that.

Answer 9

Ok All of you people ( Witnesses ) are just driving me nuts with your ignorance .. My god you read one f,n Awake and your all Freak'n doctors ...

maybe if I type this slow and use small words you morons will get this..

The woman died because she bled out .. all of her blood left her body.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY here let me repeat this ONLY solution for this is whole blood tranfusion. if you do not get the blood volume up in the body 2 things will happen

1 Brain Starves for 02
2 ( and this is the big one ) your body goes in to shock meaning all body functions 1 by 1 shut down and fail

SHOCK is the number one cause of death in Trauma

i wasnt at the hospital but if this woman was bleeding out then 2 things needed to happen

1. they needed to keep her blood volume up
2, they needed to find the source of the problem and stop the bleeding

Blood alternative do not work for massive volumetric shock.

Now finally IT SAYS DONT EAT BLOOD ... EAT PUT IN MOUTH .. you hypocritical morons

Iron Serpent Try reading Lev and Duet and then tell me what abstain means .. btw the Bible is interesting you should try actually reading it .. not just quote Watchtower

Answer 10

All of these distortions of God's Word
which result in madness such as this
break the heavenly Father's heart!

I am sad but
JOYfilled

Edit:
I already have the thumbs down so
I may as well share the thought that
has been VERY heavy on my mind
since I heard this story yesterday.

As tragic as this story is it pales
in comparison to the ETERNAL
tragedy of the woman's eternal
separation from God!!!
That is of course unless she
accepted Jesus as her LORD and Saviour
as she lay dying.

You see, a chain is ONLY as strong as its weakest link.
So if Jesus Christ is not BOTH fully God and fully man
then we are stilll dead in our sins
and no amount of good works
will impress the Author of life.

Answer 11

taffie: but it was not HER choice exactly. She was basically forced by her precious WBTS NOT to accept them. She was told that she would be destroyed at armaggedon or not resurrected if she died. She feared the WBTS' actions more than anything else. As a former JW, I can attest to the number of people that fear disfellowshipment over anything else.
Choice, real choice, is not based on fear from an outside factor.