hi
recently in the uk a young lady gave birth to twins. She was married and her and her husband both follow the jehovahs witness faith. Unfortunately the mother began to bleed and due to her beliefs was unable to have a blood transfusion. Her husband also upheld his wifes belief and request. She died. What are your views on this. Do you think she should have had a transfusion so that the babies could have known and benefitted from their mother? Or due you believe they were right to uphold their beliefs even though it resulted in death?
2007-11-09 06:08:19 · 9 answers · asked by donnajaneindigo 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
thanks for all the replies
Ronin- there is no need to be rude- i did not force you to read my question, nor did i force you to reply
2007-11-09 06:53:43 · update #1
nerds rule- please don't be rude and tell me to move on- you did not have to answer my question either
2007-11-09 06:55:06 · update #2
thankyou to the jehovahs witnesses who have replied, i have to admit i am ignorant of your religion so it is interesting to hear your views
2007-11-09 09:18:32 · update #3
As an operating room nurse I've had to deal with this issue in the past. As long as the paperwork is correct, has been signed and the risks understood by the (competent) patient - there is nothing we can do but honor their wishes.
It is a general policy that if a person refuses a blood transfusion then their request must be honored - even if it means death for the patient. It was explained to me that certain people believe that they would rather die than put their eternal soul at risk by accepting a transfusion. It's not a belief that I hold - but it's not my business to force my beliefs on a patient, so I would never consider transfusing or allow a patient of mine to be transfused if they have expressly stated that they do not want blood from another person.
It is too bad for the family - I really feel sorry for those two little babies - but if someone's faith is more important to them than their children it's not my call to make.
The one case where I don't believe a person's faith should be allowed to reject certain types of medical care is when parents refuse to seek medical care for their children. I take my role as patient advocate very seriously and I think that all children should recieve proper medical care until they achieve the age of consent and can make their own legal decisions about what sort of care they should or should not recieve.
Interesting question - have a good day!
2007-11-09 06:22:09 · answer #1 · answered by Mirage 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hiya
The full version of the BBC news report said that she didn't die from not receiving a necessary blood transfusion.
She died from complications after surgery leading to a massive hemorage (bad spelling sorry) ,,a transfusion would NOT have saved her.
Being a witness myself and having needing some horrible operations , I can tell you this from first hand experience.
In most modern countries the medical staff at hospitals are amazing and well skilled individuals , my hat is off to them.
They respected my wishes regarding blood and came up with options that were acceptable.
Because of their skillful work I made fast recoveries.
Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide value the medical profession and work along with them in pursuing innovative bloodless surgery methods that ALL people can benefit from.
For more Bible based info please feel free to email me.
2007-11-09 07:49:56 · answer #2 · answered by I♥U 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the blood is a very intimate thing, its something like the texture of the soul on the material plane. there is plenty of information about you in it, also viruses, and the last products of your nutrition. blood is personal. so if you poor someonse blood into the body of another person, it is like pooring also the strangers personality and/or consiousness into him. this can be harmful. in some sense this is much more intimate than even sex. much more! and of course also the karma is there in the blood in a certain (unripe) stage. beeing given blood transfusion also means to take over someone elses karma. which mean his "fate". and are you really looking for that?
2007-11-09 06:17:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 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
2007-11-09 06:43:07 · answer #4 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even though it is a completely delusional belief, and "supported" by only one misinterpreted verse in the OT...I have to say I support her right to refuse treatment. She was an adult and had the right to choose not to accept a life saving treatment. So be it, this is the kind of thing that happens when you choose to live your life by delusional religious beliefs.
My anger comes when JW extend that decision to their children, and refuse them life saving transfusions. That is simply child abuse, and can't be supported ethically.
2007-11-09 06:15:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Seems like a waste to me. She cheated God by cheating herself, out of life. She could have did more work for God. Maybe even help save a lost soul. She cheated her family out of a mother, wife, and help meet.
2007-11-09 06:29:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, if you did even the most cursory search you would see that this has been debated on here every single day numerous times. We have moved on.
Use the search feature
2007-11-09 06:11:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
That is their beliefs. No one has any business telling them what to do with their body. She died for her beliefs. Move on...
2007-11-09 06:11:36 · answer #8 · answered by Nerds Rule! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
if she wants to die over some irrational principle , it is her choice to do so
2007-11-09 06:12:24 · answer #9 · answered by Seargent Gork 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's not what you told me last night baby.
2007-11-09 06:11:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋