Jehovahs Question?

Question

In recent news, a young mom died through blood loss adter giving birth to twins.
If you are a Jehovahs Witness, imagine you have just given birth, and need a blood transfusion, would you die, or accept the blood, and see your children grow up?
Another thing, would you allow YOUR child to receive a blood transfusion that would save their life, or let them die in the name of Jehovah?
Answer both qu's please..thankyou <3

xox

Answer 1

Are you sure she died from not having a blood transfusion? Many die in childbirth in my local hospital and thats not because they refused blood. Why do so many women claim the right to have an abortion because its there body but you consider it wrong to refuse a blood transfusion - dont the unborn count as a child, yet they are murdered.

Answer 2

The first mistake people make is in not realising that this issue is not a "either-or" issue.

In cases of blood loss, blood transfusions are not the ONLY form of treatment available.

I don't know if you want the list of common bloodless treatments available today.

I would not, and would not allow my children to have a blood transfusion because I know it is against God's law. I know there are other forms of treatment available. Refusing a blood transfusion does not automatically mean death.

And even if the worst comes to worst, we have the resurrection hope. Yes, my children would not have me for a few years, but if they remained faithful unto the end, we'd have the whole of eternity together.

That beats being together for a few more years and then being dead for eternity.

I guess this only makes sense if you have such a Strong relationship with God that you REALLY believe that he can and will resurrect those who die faithful. If you do not believe that, then of course you'd do anything to gain just a few more years in this system of things.

Answer 3

First allow me to say that I WAS a JW and now am not.

The rhetoric in the answers above, in my opinion, are man's laws. They may site scripture about abstaining from blood, but I believe that it's been taken to extremes. I do not adhere to the concept that "forsaking ourselves and following Christ" is linked to allowing ourselves or others to die for a rule that an organization (publishing company) has set up and expect you to follow. That's MAN's laws which Christ said to the Pharaissee, you have made the law of God invalid by your traditions.

The fact that they no longer disfellowship for accepting blood transfusion but you have automatically disassociated yourself from their organization to me states that THEY (the organization) is not standing firm to THEIR OWN rules. This is hypocracy.

I pray for their ignorance.

Answer 4

Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept blood transfusions.

Answer 5

Hellooooo! Look down here Lover of JHVH & Christ Jesus. Do you see me waaaaay down here? What's wrong with all you so-called Bible Students? You guys and many other Christians are getting warped. Christ Jesus came to earth to be with man, to teach the way of love, how faith works, to show reverence to his Father. Then he suffered and was crucified for our sins. BEFORE JESUS LEFT he said, "He is leaving the HOLY SPIRIT with us!" NOBODY EVEN THINKS OF THE WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN DO. JHVH Almighty God and Christ Jesus is in heaven and the Holy Spirit is HERE. Why don't you guys depend on the Holy Spirit? Don't any of you believe the HOLY SPIRIT GOT POWERS FROM GOD? With FAITH and the HOLY SPIRIT with JHVH Almighty God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. The Holy Spirit is in us, why don't you all learn to trust in the Holy Spirit? I should go down there to your Witness Church and give a lesson myself. Who's inviting me to give a lesson?

Answer 6

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 three 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 7

I'm not a jehovah's witness, but aren't there substitutes for blood transfusions like artificial blood?

Answer 8

Hiya.

To clarify the information for you , that woman ''didn't'' die from not getting a blood transfusion.

The news report (the original) said that she died due to complications after surgery leading to a massive and unstoppable hemorrhage.

For more Bible based info please feel free to email me.

Answer 9

This Question has been posted ad nauseam or in language you could better understand Chloe.." to a sickening or excessive degree"
Suffice to Say " Jesus said . “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me. For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” Matt. 16:24, 25. I will leave it at that.

Answer 10

--EITHER YOU are uniformed about the fact that it is almost impossible for doctors to determine if a person died because they did not have a blood transfusion or you do not care to know the truth!
----UNLESS ALMOST every drop of blood has been lost from the circulatory system!
****IT HAS ABSOLUTELY been established that 10's of thousands die from tainted blood, chemical reactions of others blood and dozens of other reasons to establish that somebody elses blood infused into another person IS LETHAL!

--SO WITH THOSE truths established above:
--WE and our children SIMPLY LIVE -- "in the name of Jehovah"--by adhering to his commands on blood!
****IF YOU WISH to contend with the following experts go ahead and do so , but what they stated is what they believed:

*** g97 2/8 p. 29,28 Watching the World ***
.....Dr. David Crombie, Jr., chief of surgery at Hartford Hospital, candidly admits: “I was raised in medicine at a time when blood was thought of as A TONIC (my caps). Now it’s thought to be A POISON.”
**Bloodless Surgery Gains Momentum
--In late 1996 a hospital in Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A., joined 56 others across the country that have “bloodless centers for Jehovah’s Witnesses,” reported The Hartford Courant. “After studying the idea, hospital administrators realized that the wishes of Jehovah’s Witnesses were no longer so different from those of most other patients.” With the aid of drugs and advanced surgical techniques, doctors perform organ transplants and joint replacement as well as open-heart, cancer, and other surgeries—all without the use of blood. In addition, many health-care professionals now openly acknowledge the dangers of receiving a blood transfusion....

*** w90 7/15 p. 30 Insight on the News ***
**Most Dangerous Substance”
--Lawsuits filed by patients who have contracted a deadly disease via blood transfusions have introduced a new level of concern to many blood banks. By mid 1989 upwards of 300 lawsuits had reportedly been filed against blood banks in the United States. Gilbert Clark, executive director of the American Association of Blood Banks, acknowledged that “the public wants perfectly safe blood,” but he admitted that it cannot be guaranteed.
--Similarly, The Boston Globe Magazine reports that blood specialist Dr. Charles Huggins admits that blood “must be considered UNAVOIDABLY NON-SAFE (my caps).” He describes blood as “the most dangerous substance we use in medicine.” Since early 1989 the number of infectious diseases blood banks typically test for has increased to five (HTLV-I, associated with adult T-cell leukemia, syphilis, hepatitis B, AIDS, and hepatitis C).
--However, according to AMERICAN RED CROSS authority S. Gerald Sandler, “it seems that it’s only a matter of time until we find another rare disease spread by blood transfusion.” Despite such lethal potential, about four million North Americans are expected to receive blood transfusions during 1990."

*** g96 2/8 p. 29 Watching the World ***

Commenting on the shocking situation that put profits above personal health, Luigi Pintor, editor of the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, began his article with these words: “Blessed are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who . . . refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. As they read the newspapers these days, they will be the only ones who will not have to worry about what is going on . . . in the blood industries and clinics that sell and administer blood, plasma, and related derivatives to their fellowmen.”

--SO PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE with members of your family with blood as the lethal bullet , we choose to follow our God's law:
ACTS 15:28,29 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
"For it was the Holy Spirit's decision—and ours—to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things: (A) ..
..29 that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. (A) If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well"

Cross references:
Acts 15:28 : Ac 5:32; 15:8;