why do jahovas witnesses refuse blood transfusions?

Question

like the lady that had the twins
she ticked a box on the form stating that she did not want a blood transfusion
and now she has died
i dont think it is fair
surely being faced with a decision like that you would think that they would consider things
and be able to decide to have it done

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.


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

Jehovah considers blood as something sacred... He also tells us to abstain from it......

If you were to go to a doctors office and they said... No more alcohol ....Would you think that means just drinking it... Would you think it meant it was OK to take a needle and pump it in your body since your doctor just told you no more "alcohol"? No, that would be silly!

The same is with the scripture in the Bible... Jehovah says to ABSTAIN from blood...... This would encompass EVERY aspect of it, not just a form of it.

Anyone who tries to find a way around that scripture is looking as the scriptures put it "lovers of themselves" because they are not seeking to please God. At that point they are being selfish because Jehovah is very clear on the matter. We do have many different other things we can take in place of blood, but a straight blood transfusion is NEVER up for question!

Answer 3

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. Good health to YOU!”

The bible forbid it , the only blood the bible authorize to use is Jesus ´s blood to "drink" in Luke 22 and to "wash" in Revelation 7.

One thing is to eat things strangled that have the blood inside and other is blood, if a doctor told you can´t eat suger no matter how you put in your body by your veins or drinking or eating sugar is the same.

Jesus Christ is the only authorize to give his blood to give us the life, if you accept the blood of other person you are accepting the life given by anyone else instead of Jesus Christ.

Even in the womb the blood of the creature didn´t mix with the mother , a mother can have one type of blood and the baby another kind, why the creator did it in that way?

recently I read an article of a university that told that blood transfusion are dangerous I am looking for the newspaper to put the references.

http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=10149

Answer 4

Moises- just so you know, those aren't very good Scriptural examples (no offence or anything, but they aren't.) Also, just because something isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it's forbidden. In Corinthians it says to follow oral traditions, too. Finally, God wants us to use the knowledge of science that we have to help others. Why would He permit us to know about blood transfusions if we weren't allowed to use them? I'm sorry, I know this really isn't answering the question, but I felt the need to make some corrections.

A.F.

Answer 5

This Question is being passed around AY allday...I asked a few on this subject myself. It is a false theology, that costs lives sometimes..too sad.

http://towerwatch.com
http://freemionds.org
http://silentlambs.org
http://equip.org

Under seasrch for quesiotns in the heading above, type in Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood and see the sparks fly.

This is so sad, but not rare


Dr. Moises..has no medical training whatsoever, so I would stick to answers from medical authoraties.

I think someone is trying to slander me..I would never be happy about the death of a mother...That is sick....People will make up lies about anything to keep people from questioning the witness dogma...Moises and superman are the same troll

here are the offending questions...decide for yourself:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao0E.N40hAmkhWRH1YZvByPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071105145817AA9TBcY

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag5HVV1okSwwQBADC4xxAKLsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071105153824AAS2zbF

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmMdzfMCeHHLnSpgM8bYU8kjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071105145817AA9TBcY

I'm a doctor and have found myself in the appalling situation of trying to save a life where the patient refuses blood because they are a JW. If they have signed a form there's nothing we can do, but if it's a child ie if the parent refuses to allow their child a life saving transfusion, we can overrule them.

They get their anti transfusion beliefs as follows:


They cite four biblical texts (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12-14, Acts 15:29 and Acts 21:25). They say these mean that blood, the life-force, belongs to God and is not there for human use. They believe it a sin to eat not just black pudding but also to eat the flesh of animals that have not been properly bled.

And they extend the ban to transfusions. They won't even allow someone's blood to be stored before an operation and then used after it to replace their own blood loss. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out and returned to God. Some JWs even reject dialysis or cell salvage on these grounds. Some will not accept red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but accept "fractions" made from these components.

There is a philosophical problem here. When a substance is broken down into components does the original remain? Some 90-96 per cent of blood plasma consists of water. The remainder is albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. JWs say these may be used, according to conscience, but only if taken separately. Opponents say is like outlawing a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.

They are criticised for other inconsistencies. Blood fraction products are only available because of blood donation – a practice JWs condemned as unethical.

Many JWs still carry a signed and witnessed advance directive card absolutely refusing blood in the event of an accident. And the church's website still carries alarmist material about the dangers of transfusions in transmitting Aids, Lyme Disease and other conditions. It also exaggerates the effectiveness of alternative non-blood medical therapies.

What do doctors think?

The British Association of Anaesthetists guidelines insist that the wishes of the patient must normally be paramount. US doctors take a similar view; they know giving blood to someone who does not want it could get them sued – one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Florida even has a blanket policy of refusing to treat JWs.

Other countries, like France, take a more dirigiste view. And a landmark case in Dublin recently ruled that doctors were right to give a woman blood during childbirth because the right of her child to have a mother over-ruled her own right to refuse the blood.

There are even more subtle dilemmas to come. One asks whether doctors are obliged to give chemotherapy, which is normally accompanied by a blood transfusion, to patients who insist on having it without the blood, without which it is highly likely to fail. As medicine advances things are likely to get more, rather than less, tricky.

One more thing. Their literal interpretation of the Bible allows them (not unlike the Catholic church) to keep child abuse secret: Not good. They take Deuteronomy 19:15 literally, which demands two witnesses to a crime (not easy in cases of abuse). And they cite 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 – "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?" – to justify trying to deal with criminals with courts of elders rather than courts of law. A Panorama investigation reported they have an internal list of 23,720 reported abusers which they keep private. Studies in the US suggest they have proportionally four times more sexual assaults on children than the Catholic Church.

Any religion which literally interprets the Bible, and keeps its doings secret can be a cause of harm in my view. And the idea that a woman can die leaving twins, motherless because of an obscure text in the Bible appals me as a doctor and a human being.

Dr Evie Wallace