Also what right does a child have if they are too young to say wether they actually want to be a JW and they need a life saving blood transfusion, should they get what ever help nescesary until such a time they can decide for themselves, I have just been wondering these things since reading the horrible story about a young mother of twins who died hours after giving birth because she and her family refused to let her have a blood transfusion.
2007-11-06 08:31:10 · 8 answers · asked by jo 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
vot ana.... Why did you get so defensive I asked two questions I didn't give an opinion anywhere, and forgive me if I think that a story of a 22 year old woman dying hours after giving birth "horrible" how dare I
2007-11-06 08:49:56 · update #1
Yes, and a child's rights are decided by their parents.
They can't do anything about it really because it's religious freedom.
But I am pretty sure when the child's life is in danger some kind of organization can step in to save it..
2007-11-06 08:35:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They are, and they should not make that decision for an underage child. That's why we can get court orders.
Answering to Vot Ana: By your rationale, it is less horrible than war? Fine. Do you feel you can rape and murder a child just because whatever you do it won't be as bad as War and Genocide? That comparison is utterly useless.
Secondly you say we are not 100% sure a transfusion would have saved her, and that it is mere speculation. 8th grade math would teach you that if transfusions saved the person in 99% of the known previous cases, it is safe and sound to assume it will do the same for her. If you push that rationale to its logical conclusion, you have to refuse every kind of treatment, not just transplants and transfusions.
Edit: Vot Ana, people who go to war die for a cause, people at the receiving end of war and genocide die for nothing. Though I can see how an adult JW refusing a transplant or a transfusion would do so for a cause, an adult letting his child die for the same reason is merely enacting a death sentence and should not have the right to do so.
About the statistics I did pull out of nowhere, I was merely stating that if a procedure (whether it is transfusion, transplant, surgery, graft, chemo, radiation, you name it) is considered safe and sound and yields good results (whether the chance to save the mom was 99% or even as low as 55% is completely irrelevant), the patient, or their legal guardian knows what kind of chances they are taking. In that particular recent case, I did find two studies on maternal morbidity related to transfusions after a c-section:
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/full/100/4/633
this one studies 19,726 c-sections, 463 of which required transfusion. there was a total of 3 deaths, see table 4 (the study is not saying if they are related to the transfusion itself or other complications).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1800583
this one studied 46,766 c-sections. The overall maternal morbidity because of transfusion was 1.4/100,000.
my 99% figure was very, very shy.
2007-11-06 08:51:40 · answer #2 · answered by stym 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
According to what I've read on Yahoo Answers and verified by the Witnesses here, organ transplantation is allowed by the Witnesses now. But at one time, their leaders said it was a form of cannibalism, so I guess they were against it in the past.
There was a documentary not long ago on television which showed a Witness having a transplant of a liver (which appeared to have plenty of the donor's blood in it), but the Witness patient wouldn't have his OWN blood transplanted.
The leaders make the rules and the members follow them.
2007-11-07 01:37:11 · answer #3 · answered by browneyedgirl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.
Do you know FOR SURE that she would not have died with a transfusion? If her situation was as bad as the doctors are quoted as describing it, no one could say for sure which way things would go. Don't speculate.
How many orphans are there in the world because their fathers (and mothers) have died on the battle field in wars blessed by their church leaders? Compare with the number of orphans left by JWs who refused a blood transfusion. Then we'll talk about "horrible".
EDIT: I am defensive? Sorry, I thought I was just explaining our stand? You don't accept our point of view so it's "defensive"? Ok.
Hey Stym- I mentioned war because there people die for a cause they believe in. In most parts of the world, joining the army is VOLUNTARY- the soldiers choose to give their lives for their nations. Why can't we have our own causes too? And where did you get that data about the 99% success rate of blood transfusions?
Back to Asker: This is something GOD says- he made the blood, he gave rules on how it is to be used. You want to ignore that fact- it's your choice.
Acts 15:28,29- For the holy spirit and we ourselves 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 and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Do the children of Catholics (just as an example, no offense intended) have a say on whether to get baptised as babies? Do the children of Jews have a say on whether to get circumcised? It is the parents' responsibility to bring up their children as best as they can and according to what they think is best for their children. Live and let live.
2007-11-06 08:42:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
When I was a Witness, you could be disfellowshipped for transplantation...It was considered, cannibalism....then god Changed hes mind, and it became OK! Just like Vaccinations,...Now blood Transfusions are a matter of conscience, in SOME countries...God must like Witnesses in some counties better than others.
2007-11-08 13:45:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the bible does not forbid the use of donated organs (although killing a human donor would be wrong).
Interestingly, both Jehovah's Witnesses AND more and more secular governments believe that so-called "mature minors" should be allowed to make educated decisions regarding their own medical care. Even youth as young as eight and ten years have demonstrated the capacity to make an informed personal choice that parents and governments respect.
So who should make such a decision for a three-year-old, regarding which medical alternative should be used?
It would seem that when parents give clear evidence of studiously working to protect and prolong their child's life and best interests, the parents should be given the deference and respect befitting any other serious family decision. Sadly, anti-Witness critics ignore two facts.
1. Many MULTIPLES more have died as a result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.
2. Medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells.
Why should government or a handful of doctors insist that *IT* should have the only right to choose a course of treatment, especially when responsible parents are simply and thoughtfully requesting a different course of treatment? A Jehovah's Witness may accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).
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
2007-11-06 10:19:20 · answer #6 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes i belive they don't believe in any sort of transplantation. I don't agree with anyone deciding for anyone who is to young to decide for themselves it's like taking their life into your own hands (my grandparents are JW's)
2007-11-06 08:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by Carley Luv 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It is up to the individual JWs if he wants to have an organ transplant.We respect others who don’t want to have the transplant and those who chose to have to.
JWs do not want to die but in some cases as the early Christians did when they were thrown in lion’s den, etc with their kids and love ones, they showed that they love God more than their soul.
If you are a true Christian and the doctor said that he’ll have fornication with your child before he treats him/her and then he’ll cure him, are you going to let you kid go through that?
You normally won’t allow it because you believe that fornication is a sin, and is disrespecting and abusing your own kid and you love your kid. JWs believe that having a blood transfusion into our bodies, is a sin and a disrespect and abuse for our own bodies and our own kids.
Why do JWs believe that having blood transfusion into your body is a sin? Please read the following.
The abstention in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for the use of blood to be in the body but also fornication.We have to abstain from fornication and the use of blood inside our human body.
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 so that we can live. 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.
The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.
Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Does someone here scream at them?
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 Gentiles 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.
2007-11-06 10:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by trustdell1 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋