jehovah- should a doctor intervene?

Question

A young Jehovah's Witness has died just hours after giving birth to twins. She had signed a form refusing blood transfusions, and her family would not overrule her. Couldn't doctors have intervened?

p.s got that from bbc and i don't really know what to think about it

Answer 1

If you had of read the whole BBC article it clearly said that she did 'NOT' die from not receiving a blood transfusion.

A transfusion would 'NOT' have helped.

So this whole question is for nothing.

Answer 2

I completely understand your question, though it is hardly an isolated case. No doctor can interveine without patient consent or consent of next of kin if the patient is incapacitated or deemed incapable of making a decission.

The thing here is that this woman was an adult and knew and understood what she was doing based on her own beliefs, no matter how conviluded they may be.

In other cases, and they happen very frequently, children who have been indoctrinated into their parents religion will die because their parents will not allow transfusions and transplants. The child has no say in the matter and has not personally chosen the religion, and thus has litterally had their life stollen from them. This is murder in the most simple sense of the word.

If there really were a god/s, would they not teach that human life is sacred and deserves to be experienced, whatever the cost.

Answer 3

I would have. This story is disgusting. If I was the doctor in that room, I would have done it regardless. So what, I get struck off the register - at least these two children have a mother.

As they grow up, they are going to be taught to be jehova's witnesses too, so they wont think the family did the wrong thing - until they are older, when they can make decisions for themselves and they 'google' the story and realise what a sick minded family they have.

I just hope they both feel the same way, so they have each other to help deal with it.

Answer 4

Jehovah did not intervene. This JW lady signed a medical directive prior to going into labor, relinquishing the doctors and hospital from all responsibility should she die as a result of refusing the blood treatments she'd specified as unacceptable to her. It was her choice and she was a grown-up capable of taking such decisions. Doctors cannot intervene in such cases. They would be struck off if they did. Only when minors are involved can they get an emergency Court ruling making the child a ward of Court and so give blood treatment.

Both family's were JWs, so, no intervention from them either because they've all signed the same mandates. Her JW husband will have to live with himself, and his baby twins, knowing he could have given permission for emergency blood treatment that might have saved her life, but he refused. It needs to be said that when hemorrhage occurs after child-birth, it is so sudden and vast that instant action is needed. There are only minutes to prevent death from catastrophic blood loss. So you might hear JWs saying a transfusion would not have saved her life anyway. That is cynical deception. It can, and does, save many mothers' lives.

The paper I have reports the couple's best man, Peter Welch, saying, 'We can't believe she died after childbirth in this day and age, with all the technology there is.' That kind of astonishment is born of Watchtower Society propaganda, saying hardly any people nowadays die for lack of blood (there are so many other treatments available) and that far more harm is done through blood than good. It is their Society that says storing one's own blood prior to an operation (or labor) is 'sinful'. Mrs Gough could have done that and received her own blood, if taking someone else's was ethically wrong for her. But, no, the Watchtower Society has decreed (sorry, 'advised') members on what is, and what is not, acceptable in view of their interpretations of a few verses in the Bible.

JWs accept their leaders interpretations because they consider those few men in America to be God's chosen channel today, and that to disregard them is to disregard God. So those leaders can say anything they like, change everything they like, invent anything they like, and all JWs will accept their decrees unquestioningly. Only by exposing this as the problem that needs to be addressed might this awful waste of life end one day.

Answer 5

The same way people are prevented from throwing their lives away on the altar of war?

Individuals have an intrinsic right to determine their own belief system. In this case it harmed only herself which she believes provides eternal salvation. Let's hope she is right.

However, what about those that with their beliefs and principles go to war and kill others. Just this week 5 more died; this year more than 800. How come you are not SCREAMING loudly about these?

You mean to tell me that these are doing the right thing? Going out against the Word of God and killing people?

Let the one telling others not to steal not steal himself, Paul taught! If you tell this woman not to give her life for her faith, not your faith, then why not complain about all the lives lost in war?

How come everybody is down on this woman? Suffer with her, condole her family.

Jesus himself told us that he could have more than 12 legions of angels to help him if he had asked. Still, he gave his life for his beliefs to our benefit. He also did not harm other people with his beliefs.

Answer 6

Not without a court order signed by a judge-religion is a very serious barrier to medicine. The doctor losing his license is the least of the problem,the religious rights would have a hey day tearing apart the medical community. Too sad.

Answer 7

if the doctor had intervened the parents of the woman could have filed a lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital.

Answer 8

No.

A doctor who performs a medical procedure that has been unequivocally refused by the patient actually commits a crime in most jurisdictions (typically "assault"). That is true despite the opinions of the doctor; he will likely suffer a malpractice suit, possibly will go to jail, and may lose his license.


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 9

the bible according to Jehovah's witnesses,states that "man should abstain from blood". this meant they were not to drink blood from animals or humans! the idiots just haven't realised that yet!
this is of course typical of a religion that "brainwashes " it's followers.
they use the appearance of "aids" - "hemophilia" etc...... to justify their interpretation instead of using their brains.
to them, it is a great advert if their followers are so faith full, they would give up a life of a loved one.
this must mean that their " truth" is very "true".

thankfully one day we will all find out "THE TRUTH" that's when there will maybe be some "hell to pay" .

Answer 10

JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.

Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Do you scream at them ?


The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.

Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn’t practiced? Or have you ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to “ABSTAIN from Blood” will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to “do not EAT blood” but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction “abstain from blood” and NOT “abstain from eating/drinking blood”?

The question then is, when Acts 15 states “abstain from blood” is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians, understood that “abstaining from blood” means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion". The early Christians also understood that they won’t use blood for medical reasons, that’s why they didn’t use blood to cure epilepsy.

The point there is “eating and drinking blood” means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.

If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you’ll understand. You don’t force your allergic kid to accept nuts , do you?

Have you ever wondered why in Rev 2:14, , Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e., to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which reflects the original instructions in Acts 15:29?. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus’ slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect. So you think, the instructions in Acts 15:29 are only temporary? And notice that the instructions given in Rev 2 are not only for Gentiles but to all Christians, even Jewish Christians.

The early Christians ate meat which are properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn’t removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.

Lev 17:10 states “‘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”

Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That’s why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.

The prohibition for blood is repeated in Acts 15:28-29 but instead of just saying do not EAT blood, Acts 15 changed it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, which is a general term to encompass not only eating, drinking of any sort of blood but the future use of blood in the body, which includes transfusion.

Notice too that the Bible doesn’t say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.

Is a subcomponent/fraction of the main components of blood, considered blood? In the case of an egg, is an egg white, egg yolk, still an egg? Is the subcomponent of an egg white, still an egg? Is oxygen, a subcomponent of water, water still? The same with blood, is one of the subcomponents of a main component still considered blood? Some will say yes, some will say no. This a personal decision we have to answer to God.

If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!. Acts 15:29 Please notice YOU WILL PROSPER, GOOD HEALTH TO YOU. (The word health here is all encompassing, not only limited to spiritual or physical health, otherwise it should have said Good spiritual or physical health to you.) Have you not wondered why Acts 15:29 EXPLICITLY stated those two reasons as why the Gentile reasons should abstain from blood and NOT the reason of maintaining peaceful relations with the Jews or other reasons?

For example, a few weeks back, a news reported:

“It doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.

Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.

"If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.”

So without nitric oxide, blood cannot help supply back oxygen to the body. So to say that blood transfusion will save the woman’s life is not totally true.

There are some alternatives to blood, that each individual JWs can use depending upon their conscience.

So basically, if a JW lost a lot of blood, we would like to have the volume expanders and other nonblood products or practices that help replace the lost oxygen. Please see www.noblood.org

Other doctors though are recognizing the alternatives to blood transfusion. Please see this website.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medservices.cfm?pageid=40


The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood? Do you know of any God’s faithful followers who DRANK or ATE blood from LIVING animals or humans?
So the abstention of blood is for both animals and humans alike. People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).

Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. … might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws …

Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don’t? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.



If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?

Early Christians died and were thrown in the lion’s den and killed because of their faith. Some have seen even their own love ones died , their children, husband, wife, relatives, and other kins because of having faith in Jesus. Were they wrong to choose death because of their Christian faith? Were they wrong to die because they chose not to show even a little sign of worship to the Roman emperor or eat blood sausage?

In your given example, if the doctors have given her the alternatives, that is to replace the volume and oxygen, then the woman should probably not have died, unfortunately, some medical professionals do not want to administer the alternatives or are not familiar with it. And guess what, JWs are blamed for the death.

In short, we have to abstain from blood, - Acts 15:29, Christians need to abstain from the use of the SAME product, which is the blood, INSIDE our bodies no matter if it goes thru the mouth or thru the veins.