Jehovah's Witness?

Question

The woman who refused a blood transfusion, aged 22 and died after having twins, what is the point of that. Are there any Jehovahs amongst you lot, who can help me to understand why?

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

While I believe the question to be sincere, it will be interesting to see how long the anti-Witness camp will milk her death and use it as an excuse to attack the Witnesses.

The answers provided above by the Witnesses are correct. It should be noted that a blood transfusion is not a guaranteed to save someone from a massive loss of blood. As far as I am aware, the hospital has not released any details regarding her death pending a review (I'm sure I'll corrected on this if they have now commented).

I therefore feel it would be inappropriate to jump to the conclusion that a blood transfusion was the only treatment offered to her, and that a blood transfusion would have saved her life.

Considering that there are many, more effective, treatments available, I would expect that these would have been offered instead of a transfusion, and if they failed to save her, then the blood transfusion would not have done anything expect help her violate a Biblical command to 'abstain from blood'. (Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29)

-------------

In a case of massive blood loss, the first thing doctors would look to do is stop the bleeding, not fill the patient with blood. Cell salvage can also be used to great effect. I stand by my statement, no-one should have to take a blood transfusion.

The acceptance of a transfusion is not considered to be a matter of conscience since to do so would violate a Biblical command. The alternatives to blood would be a matter of personal conscience as would organ transplants.

Answer 3

Any sane or reasonable person (which excludes pretty much any JW) would conclude that the Bible's stance on "abstaining from blood" would indicate that followers should not DRINK blood, especially when the book was written a couple of thousand years ago and the first successful blood transfusions took place less than a hundred years ago. It seems to escape these religious zealots that the Bible was written first in ancient Hebrew, then Aramaic, then translated into what is now known as classical Greek, and from there into English and every other western language. Given that there is no accurate way to transliterate much of the original Hebrew texts (as is the case with the Qu'ran) into Greek, much less English, a sane and logical thinking person might wonder just how much of the original Bible's message was lost from the Old Testament during the course of these numerous transliterations.....but then, how many sane and logical Jehovah's Witnesses have you ever met?

Answer 4

Yes. I will try. Start out with the understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses believe completely in Jesus promise at John 5:28,29, where he said that all those in the memorial tombs would hear his voice and come out. With that in mind, to lighten the mood a bit, death ain't no how permanent. The command against the use of blood is clear through out the scriptures, including at Acts 15:20, where the early Christians were told, not just that blood was not to be eaten but to ABSTAIN from blood. In the end, blood transfusions are no guarantee that the person getting one will live. However, those obedient to God's law have a guarantee that should they die, they will live again.

Response for Mike: with respect, any "reasonable and sane" person would realize that the definition of abstain is to stay away from, not merely not to eat. Secondly, while it's true that blood transfusions are a very new thing and certainly the commands about blood predate this technique by thousands of years, ask yourself this. You go to the doctor and he tells you to stop drinking because your liver is shot. Alcohol is no good for you. Stop DRINKING he tells you. Do you honestly believe he'd be ok with you strapping an IV to your arm and opening up a drip of oh say scotch? I don't think so.

Answer 5

This is the New testment not the Old but also in the Old was forbidden.

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.

by the way "and from blood and from things strangled " if you noticed the bible separate the eat of thing with blood and blood alone; Why? if was talking about the same thing why mention two things?

If the doctor forbid you to drink alcohol cause liver´s problem, would you inject it by your veins?

blood ia only authorize to be used in the bible to atonemt of sins, that is why Jesus had to die but over of that for nothing

Answer 6

The JW's who have answered here have given you their reasons why they do not accept blood transfusions. However, what they have all failed to tell you is that the ruling on transfusions is a rule made by imperfect men who claim to be spirit led and therefore the only ones able to fully understand the Bible. These very same men have made similar rulings which have later been overturned such as the ban on vaccinations because they were against Gods divine plan, and organ transplants because they were cannabalism. The blood issue is also subject to change. When I first became a JW NO part of blood was acceptable. Then the ruling was changed to allow some blood components as a 'matter of conscience'. All these components come from whole blood and are just as much blood as an egg yolk is still egg. Whilst it is apparently a sin to donate blood or accept it if you are a JW, it is quite acceptable to donate blood if you are 'of the world', so that a JW can have components to save their life. When I first became a JW you were disfellowshipped and led to believe that you would be destroyed at Armaggedon if you accepted blood; now the ruling has just changed so that the acceptance of a transfusion is a 'matter of conscience' and if you are truly repentant then you will be forgiven. Says whom? Either Jehovah has commanded you do not accept blood or he has not, there is no grey area in such a matter. To say that such a commandment, if it exists, is a matter of conscience is akin to saying that killing someone is a matter of conscience also. From the medical viewpoint, and particularly from the obstetric viewpoint I can tell you that Iron Serpent does not have a clue what he is talking about. True, the hospital has not released any details but as a midwife of many years who has witnessed devastating haemorrhage I can speculate better than many armchair Watchtower and Awake medics can. Without a doubt this poor woman has had a massive post partum haemorrhage, the blood loss can be so rapid that blood is essential for life to continue. The haemorrhage itself is stopped either with drugs such as ergometrine and syntocinon, or as a last resort surgery including hysterectomy. Unfortunately, as I've said the blood loss can be so great and so rapid that the patient exsanguinates before these treatments can work, and in these cases blood is essential. The non blood alternatives have an important place to play in cases in which blood loss can be controlled such as surgery, but in trauma such as this they are not effective enough to maintain life. I have witnessed such cases and believe me, unless you have seen massive haemorrhage you really have not got a clue what it is like and the devastating effects it has on the body's systems. True, this girl might still have died , however, her chances of livinng would have been very greatly increased. I can only pray that her husband sees the error of the society and that his children grow up unfettered by it's rules. For a religious body to ban it's members from having any form of medical treatment should come under the incitement law which makes it an offense for that religion to incite it's members to harm themselves or others. Maybe then the society would overturn it's odious rulings and claim that this is because of 'new light' on scripture.
By the way. I am no longer a JW, praise God for His mercy in freeing me.

Answer 7

If you had of read the whole article from the BBC news source it says ..that the woman would have died anyway.

In SIMPLE words , she did NOT die from not having a blood transfusion.

This has been going around on here for a few days now by people wanting to stir trouble , and ignore what the REAL facts of the situation were.

Answer 8

"but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:20)

There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in. SO it is obviously important to God.

Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”

Yes the Bible’s prohibition include human blood, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”)

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

It has also been proven to be harmful "as studies have shown a disturbing spike in heart attacks--as much as 25%--and even deaths in patients who have received blood, usually within a month after the transfusion." If you are interested in this study here is the link-

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670523,00.html

I would just like to add i am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this is just my knowledge on the subject. :)

Answer 9

Where in the bible does it say,

"It is okay to disobey God, if your life is in danger."

or

"The love of God means disobedience."

First century Christians died horrible deaths because they wouldn't place a pinch of incense in a fire.

The command laided down is to "abstain from blood".

If your doctor told you to abstain from peanuts, would you reason:

I'll just grind them up and insert them into my veins.

Transfusions is 'eatting'.

.

Answer 10

Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely believe that it is a gross sin to accept a blood transfusion, since the Bible states that we must "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:29)

Not something I agree with but there you are. [shrugs]