are you a Jehovah witness, do you put your religious beliefs before the health and welfare of your children?

Question

to me that means you have been brainwashed if you do

Answer 1

no im bloody not and that woman that died after childbirth because she would not take a blood transfusion was disgusting! What a waste and so young as well! They (jehovah witnesses) want their heads seen to!

Answer 2

To turn this around, I could ask about all the "selfish" people who put themselves first and accepted blood transfusions, got hepatitis or aids and left children to care for their dying parents??? (I believe each to their own, but the reverse to the question being asked is worth considering)

There are more people who have died from the affects of blood transfusions than will ever die from refusing one.

There are so many alternative treatments out there, and usually by the time someone is at that stage of "needing" a transfusion, it is possible that wouldn't save them anyway.

Having said that, it is a fundamental belief of witnesses, based on solid scripture. Other religions have even more extreme beliefs - for example, the Christian Scientists who refuse nearly all treatment. We rarely here anyone criticise that extreme belief.

Respect is the key here. We may not necessarily believe in what someone chooses, but for the most part it is their own decision.

Answer 3

Not a JW.

The article mentions that she would of died with or without a blood transfusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

My mother is an adherent of that religon and knowing her all my life it seems rather clear she has no interest in dying. Im sure the family strived and stressed all possible solutions for her to live.

I respect people's belief's, but I dont understand the WT position on fractionation. So far I've read the Watchtower June 2000

Sad story my condolences.

Take Care Everybody.

Answer 4

No.

A Jehovah's Witness parent puts the ETERNAL welfare of his child ahead of the opinions of some outsider about what MIGHT further the welfare of his child in the short-term. Don't all conscientious parents do that?

Adherents of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are serious students of the bible, and individually choose to dedicate themselves to living by the Bible. Parents among Jehovah's Witnesses unapologetically work to train their children to make the same personal dedication, but no child is ever forced to do so.

Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses are at the forefront of the emerging concept that "mature minors" should be allowed to make educated decisions regarding their own medical care. Witness and non-Witness children as young as eight and ten years of age have been determined to have the capacity to make such an informed choice.

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

Answer 5

Firstly i would like to say how sad it is that this young lady died and how it is easy to see why people would get very upset about this happening. The decision to abstain from blood is a personal matter and something that is never forced upon someone. Each Witness has their own choice. Why would someone choose to do this though? Do you love your wife (husband) enough that you would be willing to risk your life for her (him)? . . . There are also men who risk their lives for their country, and they are viewed as heroes, aren’t they? But there is someone who is greater than any person or thing here on earth, and that is God. Would you risk your life because of love for him and loyalty to his rulership? The issue here really is loyalty to God. It is God’s Word that tells us to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:28, 29)
There are many things that are rather common today and that Jehovah’s Witnesses shun—for example, lying, adultery, drunkenness,stealing, smoking, abortion. Why? Because we govern our lives by God’s Word. In the end it all comes down to Faith in God and whether you wish to be loyal to him.

Answer 6

i don't really get into any religious debates,but letting that woman of 22 die leaving two newborns was an atrocity.
and i don't know why PAPA above me is going round the mill,spouting quotes and passages from the bible because that doesn't even bear any resemblance to the facts what occurred. her family refused her a transfusion because of there brainwashed beliefs,and the result is she died...FACT.
if she had,had a transfusion she would have been disowned by her family,and outcast from the Jehovah's witness group,is this correct PAPA? a straight yes or no will suffice.
but at least she would still have been alive to watch her kids grow up....its extremely sad when people care more about there beliefs than life itself.

Answer 7

I would NEVER put any of my beliefs before the health and welfare of my children.I do not believe in ANY god i belive in my self and the love of my family.I believe in real life not fiction from a preacher or book,people need to get a grip .
I can not understand the lack of commen sence and motherly love.Its compleatly retarded.And its crippling the world as a whole that and a multitude of other political problems.
Its just PATHETIC

Answer 8

We do allow them to have transfusions—the safer kind. We accept the kind of transfusions that don’t carry the risk of such things as AIDS, hepatitis, and malaria. We want the best treatment for our children, as I am sure that any loving parent would.
When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. No doubt you realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. When much blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed. Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these.’ (2) ‘Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.’ (3) ‘Even more important to us is what the Bible itself says at Acts 15:28, 29.’
I can understand your point of view. I suppose you are imagining your own child in that situation. As parents we would do everything possible to safeguard our child’s welfare, wouldn’t we? So if folks like you and me were going to refuse some sort of medical treatment for our child, there would certainly have to be some compelling reason for it.’

Answer 9

How many "Christians mother "had sent their sons to kill another human being and to be killed in the war of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why your pastor didn´t tell you that is wrong to go to a war?

Did Jesus command his followers to be soldiers and kill babies and women in a foreign countries?

How many people died yesterday in Iraq under "Christians soldiers"

How many blood have the shred in the floor for nothing?

can you give me you biblical reason that you can kill a baby in a war?

the same ible that forbid blood transfusion forbid shred blood in wars, we obey both things, JWs don´t participate in any war, nor use blood for nothing.

Answer 10

religious nuts baffle me, how can somebody believe in "God's" rules when God has never been seen and if there was such a God why does all the bad things in the world happen, floods in Brazil, fires in California etc etc etc.

Until I see a "God" then my mind is my own and nothing written in any book would even have an affect on my opinions.

My God is Jon Bon Jovi, at least I have proof that he exists !!

If there is something in the medical world that could help me or my kids then i'll take it !!

Answer 11

Yes Papa, that's all very well, but crystalloid solutes, like the ones you have mentioned do not carry oxygen and this is the reason why blood transfusions are necessary.
It's NOT about volume and mass, it's about oxygen reaching the vital organs. What this poor woman needed was blood, NOT water based solutions and that is the reason why she died so unecessarily.