Are there any doctors who are Jehovah Witness'es ?

Question

And would they be duty bound to give blood transfusions if needed. Willow no digs at Jehovah Witness'es only asking questions for a reason, don't be so touchy and lighten up.

Answer 1

they cant be doctors... saving peoples lives is unnatural and they would go to hell if they did something to help someone... lol

Answer 2

Yes. Several that I know of. As for "duty bound", since I am not a doctor I do not know. I am aware a doctor would be the one requesting one, so a doctor who is a JW would probably not request one.

Also I know most transfusions are not needed by most competent doctors. Many medical publications show the benefits of bloodless surgeries. Among them are fewer complications of surgery, quicker healing times and less days in the hospital. Even open heart surgery has been done without transfusions.

Answer 3

There are many doctors who are JWs as well and many nurses and other medical personel.

It is not the surgery or assistant surgeon who calls for blood use, but the anesthesiologist who is in charge of keeping the patient safe and comfortable, monitoring blood pressure, pain meds, etc.

And a surgical nurse who would give it and the patient of course would have to ask for or deny it.

Witnesses just do not donate blood or personally administer it. There are not any instances where every surgeon, Dr. and nurse in the OR are JWs....and they wouldn't let there be even if there was a possibility. If others choose to accept blood, that is their business just as if they choose abortion, sex outside marriage, porno etc.

We do not stand around picking or griping at, etc. those who disagree with us. We obey the golden rule and treat everyone as we would like to be treated.

I know quite a few JW medical doctors and nurses.

JWs have also donated gamma knifes and other things to hospitals around the world.

Debbie

Answer 4

Yes. I don't know how many exactly, but a lot.

(Quote)
"If the Christian disciple Luke were back here on earth by a resurrection of the dead, what would he do? Luke accompanied Paul, who called him “Luke the beloved physician.” Would he join medics today in giving transfusions? The Bible answer must be No! This very Luke was the Bible writer who reported for us the decree of the Christian Council of Jerusalem, quoting from it three times.

This decree, as reported by Luke, said to non-Jewish Christians “to keep yourselves free . . . from blood.” It made no exception for Physician Luke or medical doctors. It did not say, Keep yourselves free from blood except in the case of a transfusion administered by a competent medical doctor; or except on orders from a lawmaking body or from a legal judge who shoves aside the required “due process of law” and becomes a law to himself and arbitrarily declares a state of emergency and orders the appealing doctor to give a transfusion over the religious objections of the patient. The Apostolic Christian Council forbade “blood,” without differentiating human blood from animal blood, unqualified!
(end of quote)

Answer 5

If they feel that they could not give blood transfusions, then I would say no. Each person must decide if it would go against his or her religious beliefs.
Just as Buddhists are generally not butchers because it goes against ahimsa. People generally do not seek out an occupation that, by its very nature, goes against their religion or beliefs.
BTW- the plural of witness is witnesses.

Answer 6

Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood transfusions..Do you believe what this doctor says?
This is a reply that I got from a medical doctor, to a question concerning a Jehovah's Witness mother who died and left behind 2 new born baby girls after delivery.

The Watchtower pints nonsense about how Blood is not necessary. This is a reply from a real doctor, not a publishing company.....Will you listen now?
I'm a doctor and have found myself in the appalling situation of trying to save a life where the patient refuses blood because they are a JW. If they have signed a form there's nothing we can do, but if it's a child ie if the parent refuses to allow their child a life saving transfusion, we can overrule them.

They get their anti transfusion beliefs as follows:


They cite four biblical texts (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12-14, Acts 15:29 and Acts 21:25). They say these mean that blood, the life-force, belongs to God and is not there for human use. They believe it a sin to eat not just black pudding but also to eat the flesh of animals that have not been properly bled.

And they extend the ban to transfusions. They won't even allow someone's blood to be stored before an operation and then used after it to replace their own blood loss. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out and returned to God. Some JWs even reject dialysis or cell salvage on these grounds. Some will not accept red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but accept "fractions" made from these components.

There is a philosophical problem here. When a substance is broken down into components does the original remain? Some 90-96 per cent of blood plasma consists of water. The remainder is albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. JWs say these may be used, according to conscience, but only if taken separately. Opponents say is like outlawing a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.

They are criticised for other inconsistencies. Blood fraction products are only available because of blood donation – a practice JWs condemned as unethical.

Many JWs still carry a signed and witnessed advance directive card absolutely refusing blood in the event of an accident. And the church's website still carries alarmist material about the dangers of transfusions in transmitting Aids, Lyme Disease and other conditions. It also exaggerates the effectiveness of alternative non-blood medical therapies.

What do doctors think?

The British Association of Anaesthetists guidelines insist that the wishes of the patient must normally be paramount. US doctors take a similar view; they know giving blood to someone who does not want it could get them sued – one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Florida even has a blanket policy of refusing to treat JWs.

Other countries, like France, take a more dirigiste view. And a landmark case in Dublin recently ruled that doctors were right to give a woman blood during childbirth because the right of her child to have a mother over-ruled her own right to refuse the blood.

There are even more subtle dilemmas to come. One asks whether doctors are obliged to give chemotherapy, which is normally accompanied by a blood transfusion, to patients who insist on having it without the blood, without which it is highly likely to fail. As medicine advances things are likely to get more, rather than less, tricky.

One more thing. Their literal interpretation of the Bible allows them (not unlike the Catholic church) to keep child abuse secret: Not good. They take Deuteronomy 19:15 literally, which demands two witnesses to a crime (not easy in cases of abuse). And they cite 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 – "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?" – to justify trying to deal with criminals with courts of elders rather than courts of law. A Panorama investigation reported they have an internal list of 23,720 reported abusers which they keep private. Studies in the US suggest they have proportionally four times more sexual assaults on children than the Catholic Church.

Any religion which literally interprets the Bible, and keeps its doings secret can be a cause of harm in my view. And the idea that a woman can die leaving twins, motherless because of an obscure text in the Bible appals me as a doctor and a human being.

Dr Evie Wallace

Answer 7

Yes. There are plenty of Witness doctors. None of them will administer blood transfusions. You may not know this but plenty of non-witness doctors prefer to perform certain operations without blood, such as heart surgery.

Answer 8

guess what? we have doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers that are Jehovah Witnesses. there are many bloodless operations, people who are not witnesses, don't want blood either

Answer 9

doctors are not obligated to do anything that conflicts with their own morals or ethics.

Answer 10

yes many Jehovah witnesses are Doctors.............There r bloodless surgeries that jehovah witness use

Answer 11

Yes. But very few MEDICAL doctors.