JWs - a young mother died yesterday because she didn't have a blood transfusion...?

Question

British newspapers are full of the story today. She gave birth to twins and haemorraged, and although the doctors begged her husband to overrule her written refusal to have a transfusion he would not and she died.

I just wondered how you view this? Will her husband be applauded? Is this nevertheless a tragedy, or is it a triumph of faith? Had she (or he for her) accepted the transfusion and lived to raise her son and daughter, would they have been looked upon badly, or even shunned?

I am a Mormon and although my faith forbids me to drink alcohol, I can if it is deemed medically necessary. I am not expected to die for my faith. Does it worry you that you might be called upon to do so?

Interested to learn the Witness perspective on this.

Why is everyone who has answeed so far not a Jehovah's Witness? I want their take on the matter, not others to insult and bash the JWs. A terrible tragedy has occurred, and we should be respectful of that and try to understand the meaning behind it, not insult the poor dead woman.

Answer 1

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.

In order to qualify for baptism, a Jehovah's Witness must express understanding and conviction that a true Christian values God's law (and the lives of his brothers) more highly than his own individual life.
...(John 15:12-13) Love one another just as I have loved you. No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.


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

thank you for raising this thought provocking question. i studied JW religion many years ago at university and interviewed some JW's on this subject. They felt justified at the time because it was right at the start of the AIDS/HIV issue in 1987. So if you accept blood you could get aids -"gods curse" their words not mine. They claim it is biblical in origin to abstain from blood, but this was a literal translation of a passage relating to animal sacrifices to pagan gods, not transfusions which had not even been invested then! As far as i can see, God gives doctors the skills and knowledge to save lives, who are we to throw away a life? I am sure god would not have wanted those two babies to grow up motherless for the sake of a misinterpretation of the bible. So senseless. Everyone is entitled to believe what they like, but if their faith has detrimental effects on others (ie the twins, or extremist terrorists for example) then there has to be something wrong. My thoughts are with those babies who will no doubt blame either themselves for being born or their dad for not stoping their mother's death. Nobody should die in childbirth in this day and age.
Enough said - I'm off to give blood!

Answer 3

This is a good question...which makes a change.....
Its so sad to see that this poor woman made this choice for the sake of religion...that is why I dont go to church anymore because of the man made doctrine. I do believe in God but lets please remember WHEN the Bible was written and by whom and for the people of those times.......

I do feel for that family and especially when these Twins grow up and find out that their poor Mother died for the sake of religion......NOT FOR THE SAKE OF GOD.

God is a caring God and does not want us to suffer.

How strange after reading all the above replies I dont believe one has been from a JW.

Answer 4

Witnesses must refrain from blood. In context, this means the drinking of blood, blood sacrifices or blood "oaths". It cannot possibly include blood transfusions as this procedure was unknown in biblical times. However, as we live in a free, democratic and tolerant society, she had the right, however misguided it may seem to us, to refuse such treatment. It is to be hoped that the Witness community will support the bereaved husband and help look after the two children, rather than leave it to the state.

Answer 5

I think people have the right to refuse any and all medical treatment for themselves. It's her life, her body, her reasons and beliefs.

I'm not a JW, but I would refuse organ donation. Just how I feel. It's my right.

Many people who are all pro-choice when it comes to other medical matters are all "she's so stupid and wrong" when it comes to this one.

Yes, her faith and religion influence her ethics which influence her decisions...that is her choice as well.

People have the FREEDOM to choose to be conservative.

Answer 6

The Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to answer you. See you are of another faith and as so are considered to be Satan's representative.

For furter information on JWs I would recommend
www.freeminds.org

Answer 7

Yes, please some Jehovah Witnesses answer. It is not for the rest of us to pass judgement.

All i know, is it can be difficult to go against conscience.

I pray now as I write for the husband and babies to get help and support. They need it.

Answer 8

You are expected to be able to give the unltimate sacrafice for your faith. Go to the temple and listen to the promises you make for the faith.

Mormon here.

Answer 9

There are hundreds of people that die a year because of blood transfusions go wrong. Some of the blood is contaminated or there is an alergic reaction to the body and the person dies a terrible death of pain.

Also taking or eating blood is against God's will. So you can either obey him or disobey him. A lot of German JW's died in the hands of the Nazis because JW's did not do the salute of Hitler and where against him. Knowing they would die, They had faith in God and the resurrection Jesus talked about.

Answer 10

From what I can gather, "eating blood" (including blood transfusions) goes directly against the word of God for JWs. So in this case, the Mother and Father would be applauded for sticking to their faith. Much in the way a regular Christian would be applauded for accepting death, rather then rejecting God.