A young mother has died after giving birth to twins, because of her refusal to have a blood transfusion.?

Question

She was a Jehovah's Witness, as is her husband. Do you think there is something wrong with a religion that preaches that it must be given preference over families, the very fabric of life? If you were in the position where you had to choose between your family and your religion, what would be your choice?

There have been some really interesting answers here, and I've given everyone a thumbs up. I've heard from both sides. I'm not going to choose a best answer until tomorrow, but it may not even be in line with my way of thinking. Thank you all for your answers and for making this such an interesting topic.

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses are generally very 'pro-family', and actively support family groups generally. The over-reaching problem with them is that they are legalistic.
They'll quote the book of Acts at us, in which the author describes how much 'Judaism' the Greek converts to Christianity have to keep in order to be good people. At that point, Christians were expected to abstain from "food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" (acts 15:29). Since blood transfusions were not around in Jesus' time, the term 'blood' here is presumed to refer to animal blood, which Jews traditionally drained out of meat before eating it.

So the passage related to the degree of 'Jewishness' required of Christians by the Apostles.

However, it is worth noting that this discussion takes place in Acts, and the development of Christianity is still at a very early stage. The minimum level of 'Jewishness' required of Christians changes dramatically and over a short period of time. Paul is a great influence in this. In 70AD Paul met the Jewish Christian leaders in Rome to discuss this very issue, and the Jewish Christians agree that it is not necessary for Christians to become Jewish in order to be saved. The stand-alone religion of Christianity is adequate. Judaism is completed by it, and effectively superceded. Jesus' salvation means that there is no 'Jew or Greek' any more. Salvation is salvation into the Sonship of Christ Jesus.

As a result adhering to the practices of the Jews is not required, and the Jehovah's Witnesses - who let's face it, they're not known for good Biblical Scholarship, even their name is nonsense created by a German Scholar who'd never heard of a Kathib-Qere form because if he had they'd all be called Yahweh's Witnesses - have left this poor woman to needlessly give her life for a false prophet and a false religion.

Yes, they recognise Jesus as a Prophet, but how any religious group can read Acts but deny the existence of God's Holy Spirit I really don't understand.

The entire history of the Joho's is full of such nonsense. They set a precise number on the number of people who would be 'saved' (based on Revelation) and when their number exceeded this number, they just moved the goalposts and carried on spouting their drivel.

Anyway, enough of a tirade, if you open the door to a Joho, tell them they're called by the wrong name, they're wrong to ignore the trinity, and they're wrong to insist of implementing outmoded, superceded Jewish law in a Christian context. Then close the door.

Answer 2

While I think that Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs that's, I find a bit weird ultimately it is up to them to chose. So long as the decision to follow ANY religion, is a person's own, and they are of sound mind, it should be OK. It's where peoples choices effect others that I can have issues....

In such case the only valid issue to consider is are the children put at risk. If so the parents aren't LEGALLY fit to be parents.

I hope such a situation would never occur to me, but if it did, I think my family would come before any religious "law". I'm a Pagan and I feel that it states "life, before religion."

While not the specific case you refer to, this discusses some of the issues, so might be of interest...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

(The BMA ethicist isn't quite telling the full story. English Law has a clause which treats Women in Labour/ Just after, as being mentally unstable/ill. It was largely put in to protect women from charges of assault during labour. (Think how many midwives/husbands get "punched" during labour? It's a perfectly normal thing when giving birth)

It doesn't affect the situation with "long term" JWs as they formed the beliefs while "sane"
)

Answer 3

That's a good question, I wonder did that incident really happen?

When restricting a person to a life/death situation due to religion that tests your faith, it ultimately makes you decide if it is right or wrong, if you ever had any doubts.

It is a very personal thing. For me personally it is nuts to believe in a faith that would allow you death before a blood transfusion. No disrespect to those people it is their choice.

But the harsh reality is death at the cause of religious beliefs is common just look at the wars it causes. This example (blood transfusion) is so in your face you want to scream it is so dumb save her. Right or wrong it makes no sense to allow someone to die when you can save them, all religions should have that kind of clause otherwise what good is religion, if it lets you die in this world when you could be saved?

It saves you for after this life. What is in place to save you in this life, you are alone, than what good is this thing called religion for you now?

Answer 4

If your faith is strong you must follow it. To live with a bad conscience is surely hard to live with and I am sure she gave it a great deal of thought to make such a stand. Its not a hasty decision but made long in advance. There are living wills made every day that state that if unconcious what treatment people want. Are they wrong too.

Answer 5

Personally I'd choose family, every single time.

But the real point is that we should all have the right to choose, and this without having to put up with the condemnation and denigration of others.

This woman made her choices and stuck with them. She didn't make decisions about ending the lives of anybody else.

She gains my respect.

Her family gains my respect.

Answer 6

aren't all the elders and such in that cult men?

did they dictate what should or should not occur during the birth process between husband and wife?

the husband abandoned his responsibility to his wife and the children....

she abandoned her family and her husband and the children....with that dumb idea....


I gave birth to twins( 6.4 & 6.7) and I am little... I do not understand what the problem was here that she died??

God gave me a brain and I would chose the med and stay with my family....

Answer 7

If God hadn't wanted us to have all these advances in medicine in order to save lives, He would not have given us the power or gift of knowledge in order to do so. Personally I think J.W.s take their belief too far. Now those poor little babies are going to be brainwashed from day one.

Answer 8

I've always thought if there was a god, he would the capacity to be far more compassionate than I.
Therefore if I chose my children over my god he would understand.
Call me an old hippy, but the capacity to love grows with your family. Are we not all gods children, so would he not still love us if we chose the selfish course and wanted to live to see the gift he'd given us grow to into children?

Answer 9

My family.

Answer 10

God should feel shame taking away mother from young children and vice verse.
he is not fare to so many people,does he exists?
Why does he not give life to those people who has not lived
their life i mean to young people ?