Jehovah's witness dies because of what they believed in?

Question

I think its absolutly awful..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2205581,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

I don't believe a god would make someone suffer like that. Its a terrible tragedy, what do you think? x

I understand it was what she thought was best, but those children will suffer alot because of this.

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

If you had of read the whole BBC news (the main source) article 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.

And judging by the other stupid answers , theres a lot of other willingly ignorant people out there.

Answer 3

I respect their wishes in refusing a blood transfusion, but to then turn around and say they "can't believe she died in this day and age with all the technology" strikes me as a little hypocritical. My heart breaks for those children faced with life without their mother. I am a firm believer in the fact that God gave man the capability to find all these amazing things in medicine, if he did not want us to take advantage of them to save lives, why did he give us the capability to discover them! No, I think Jehovahs' witnesses interpate the Bible too literally.

Answer 4

Yet parents endorse their sons going to war. To kill others and likely get killed themselves. What about the thousands of children that are left motherless and fatherless because of the wars that are going on around the world. Many of these wars are backed by religious factions. (and I dont mean just the Islamic religion),
What people don't realise, or won't accept., is that JWs love live. They don't want to die, nor do they want their children to die, in fact, they don't want anyone to die.
There are so many different medical procedures today that can be administered to reduce the need for blood.
Doctors are well aware that to perform bloodless surgery is skilful and many are willing to do that surgery. It is easy to say, "give blood", that is a quick way out of a situation. I have had two operations and although there was blood loss, I was able to sustain it and in fact, the doctor told me that I recovered much quicker than others who had the same operation but elected to have blood.
If you love someone, you want to please them. You want to make their heart rejoice. Yet that is just what JWs do. They love Jehovah and they want to make his heart rejoice.
One other point. What if they had given her a transfusion and she still died, what then?
What if they had forced her to have blood, or forced it on her whilst she was unconscious, and she died. What then?

Answer 5

My Grandmother ,Aunts, Uncles,cousins,,,are or were JWs and I heard this most of my life,,not taking blood,,,I understand it is their belief,and they had very, very, strong belief in this,,and they have told me they would rather die than do this,,,I don't understand this,,,but its their belief,,,,and to me it gos against our (strongest instinct to live,survive) I don't believe in suicide,,and I also don't believe that death is the end,,but a new beginning that's my belief,,and I don't think God makes people suffer,,we have a choice and being the most destructive animal on this planet, we have made that choice!!! I feel bad for the to children and hope they are blessed all of their life's for what their Mother did,,but she did what she believed in, and maybe the children will accept this one day......and stand on their belief what ever it may be.

Answer 6

you comprehend, I tremendously much ask your self whether the JWs are a million/2 applicable. it would make sense that there would be poles caught in the floor exterior the city partitions. The condemned would be nailed to a crossbeam beforehand of time, and after the scourging, Jesus would have fallen on his face, no longer able to seize himself. The Roman squaddies would are starting to be to be pissed off with him, and bumped off the nails quickly on an identical time as they nailed somebody else to the crossbeam to hold it for him, in all probability dragging Jesus something of how. Then as quickly as on the torture website, they'd have re-nailed Jesus to that beam, and lifted him onto the stake. Nailing Jesus to a stake on my own would place his arms above his head the place exhaling would have been impossible in spite of the help of his nailed ft. He would have died interior minutes, no longer the hours that it actual took. i presumed the "interest of Christ" movie dealt with it too mildly. Crucifixion replaced into torture perfected, nasty stuff.

Answer 7

How many soldiers were killed cause their religious leader tell them is Ok to go to War, and how many muslims women died killed by "Christians soldiers"?

The Land Letter was a letter sent to President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002 which outlined their theological support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The letter was written by Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. It was co-signed by Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Bill Bright, chairman of Campus Crusade for Christ, James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Carl D. Herbster, president of the American Association of Christian Schools.

Answer 8

Religion and education are still the best two ways to legally abuse and neglect a child...

Slap a child, the sting fades eventually. Lie to a child, the sting can last a lifetime.

Answer 9

Are you willing to die for your beliefs or will you compromise when the going gets rough?

It is indeed tragic what happened to this young mother. As the Bible says, death is an enemy. (1 Cor. 15:26) Her refusal to accept blood is based on Acts 15:28, 29: "Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] 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 [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

True Christians realize that even with the best of medical care in the finest of hospitals, at some point people die. With or without blood transfusions, people die. To say that is not being fatalistic. It is being realistic. Death is a fact of life today. People who disregard God’s law on blood often experience immediate or delayed harm from the blood. Some even die from the transfused blood. Still, as all of us must realize, those who survive the transfusions have not gained everlasting life, so blood does not prove to have saved their lives permanently.

However misunderstood their stand may be, the Witnesses are determined for their part to obey the apostolic decree, “Keep abstaining from . . . blood.” Acts 15:29; 5:29.

Answer 10

When I first heard about this, I was angry. Now, I realise there's not much anybody can do about it - not even to prevent it from happening again. It's their belief and their choise. If they accept to die for religion, let them. It's free will, and it's a democratic country too. I'm just sorry for the poor twins