Jehovah's Witnesses: What would you do if your child needed a blood transfusion, now since the doctrine is

Question

clearly changing?

Answer 1

The Doctrine has already changed in 2 countries, and is in the process of becoing a matter of conscience.

Flip Flop dogma at it's most dangerous.


Is this like when they said it was ok to have Organ transplants, or to receive Vaccinations?


Will it go something like this: Having a blood transfusion was a Disfellowshipping offense....Now it is a Disassosciating offense...

From a disassosciating offense ..to a matter of consciense....

From a matter of conseience to a command to follow the "New Light" and a commmand to partake

From "New Light" command to..a disfellowshipping offense for not having a blood transfusion and considered suicide...?


We all have watched this pattern with other Witness edicts...What about this one...We all can see this coming!

Answer 2

My family is devout Jehovah Witnesses when my grandmother was sick they made their peace with the fact that in order to save her life she was going to have a blood transfusion. They still said after wards that they were not in agreement, but I did not see any of them running to stop the needle or signing any papers or talking to the doctor. The truth, they believe it if its not happening to them , but they won't let a child (or a mother in my case) die because of it. Like every religion you fix it to your convenience. The reason I don't believe in any.

Answer 3

Are you sure about their doctrine changing?

Here is a hypothetical... A mother giving birth to twins is dieing due to blood loss?

Here is the thing... when those commands were written, the ones in the answer's to follow, what was the meaning in the blood? They had no way of giving blood. Yes the idiots in those days drank blood. Some still do because they believe that gives them some sort of dark power.
To me it is a question of does the command to abstain from blood reach down to today's blood transfusions?

To take a very life and death view of these scriptures as literal is just exactly that, life and death. To be fair the witnesses believe that it would mean death forever if they did take a blood transfusion. My thoughts on this have a wide spectrum from a kind of sick admiration to a very empty feeling for the kids and father. I am certain that this married couple knew the ramifications of this decision and put it in Jehovah's hands.

However, finding the required help for this father for the next 20 some odd years is no small order. Even if they are witnesses. Humans are still human and step kids are still step kids. It's not easy to raise kids much less alone. In fact I'll bet it was easier for them to make this decision than many think. Of course they were surrounded by family and friends PLUS Elders from their congregation.

So, back to the point... "What do you think?" Does abstaining from blood mean do not take a blood transfusion? No matter the circumstances? To me the interesting point of the Witnesses stance is that it is OK to use blood expanders but not blood products, not even their own. Mind you it is OK to use vitamins to strengthen their blood it's even OK to eat the liver or heart of animals. And there is the rub for me. I understand that their view is that the blood belongs to Jehovah and is sacred. The filter of and pump of blood is not. They are just mussels.

Are the Heart and liver simply just organs that are consumable and the product that they circulate and filter are not. Can they have a heart transplant? Yes..... Think about that for a bit would you? But, to take red blood cells even from a mate is both punishable by Jehovah and means for excommunication for the surviving mate if they are part of the decisions. That’s right so not only is the dieing mate trying to save her soul, in this case, with Jehovah but on top of that the threat of excommunication for the surviving mate. So, there goes his support system if she had one and still died.

Does God want us to prove that we will put this command ahead of not dieing? Is life sacred? Would this mother have stopped respecting the sanctity of life and the giver of it if she had consumed red blood cells? I do not know but we will never know will we? Nor will her children or husband.

I for one have never read anyplace were Christ Jesus placed a circumstance on any of the people that he resurrected. Who is to say that they did not receive “new blood” the instant that he awoke them but we just did not have the means or the scientific back ground to ask medical questions about this very real process.

Even the witnesses will stipulate that Jesus was part of the creation of man and he had great empathy for our condition and was moved to raise people from the dead. Further, Jesus never had a word to say on this matter.

I am sorry for the kids and father and I pray that the elders and friends stick with this soul for as long as it takes to raise these boys. And I feel they will owe them a huge apology when they miss their mother. Finally, if it is equally true when Christ prayed for them to be one just as he and the farther are one and if its true that in marriage they become one flesh the other mate and the unified Christian congregation should be allowed to share their unified (one) blood.

Answer 4

probably let there children die are change religion like they change there doctrine every couple of years and yes i can prove without a doubt that there doctrine is false. who raised Jesus from the dead ?(start reading)

Answer 5

The doctrine isn't changing.

If you are a servant of God, you're suppose to put his laws above of yours...even if it means your life. This has been this way even before pre-Christian times

Answer 6

Where is it "changed?"

The Bible still says to ABSTAIN from blood does it not?

I do not see any "change."

Answer 7

I am really sorry that you believe in Jehovah's Witnesses...please turn away from this cult....

Answer 8

you spelled "Jehova's witlesses" wrong, fixed it for you.

Answer 9

"needed"?

Answer 10

Here are some excerpt from a news about bloodless surgery.

“For the past 30 years, Dr. Estioko, currently medical director at St. John's Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery Center in Santa Monica, California, has performed surgeries on high-risk heart patients from all over the world, specializing in repeat operations and multiple valve surgeries.

This is a higher level of surgical technique," Dr. Estioko stresses. "Not everybody can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are not so good, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field."

Estioko spent 11 years in New York, where he was also professor at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. In 1990, he moved to California to be part of the Kay Medical Group in Los Angeles in 1990, a cardiac surgery group where he stayed for 14 years before moving on to St. John's Health Center.”


Notice he said “NOT EVERYBODY can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are NOT SO GOOD, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field”.




Have you asked that doctor about “nitric oxide” considering that the donated blood lost much of it? Have you read this news?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/st...

It states in part:
For years, physicians noticed that patients who received transfusions of banked blood were MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who got NO BLOOD.
Duke University researchers believe they know why — and how the problem might be solved.
Donated blood almost immediately begins to lose a gas that opens vessels so oxygen and nutrients get to tissues, the Duke researchers report. Without that gas — nitric oxide — the vessels stay closed, blood can’t deliver its precious cargo, and patients founder, the scientists suggest in two articles published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other doctors supports bloodless medicine.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...


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?