PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE --with Blood Transfusions as the lethal bullet OR.......?

Question

.....following God's law on abstaining from blood, -AS STATED, by Luke the physician?

**ACTS 15:28,29 (HCSB)

28"For it was the Holy Spirit's decision........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"( my caps).

--AND ALSO take this warning:

.....Dr. David Crombie, Jr., chief of surgery at Hartford Hospital, candidly admits: “I was raised in medicine AT A TIME (my caps) when blood was thought of as A TONIC. 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. ........"

***OUR STAND is primarily Scriptural but there are many comments like above!
--SO WHAT do you choose RUSSIAN ROULETTE or as ACTS 15--stated?
--And why?

*** 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).

*** g 8/06 p. 12 The Real Value of Blood ***
***An Inviting Option
-- “A growing number of hospitals are offering an alternative: ‘bloodless’ surgery,” reported The Wall Street Journal. “Originally developed to accommodate Jehovah’s Witnesses,” states the journal, “the practice has gone mainstream, with many hospitals promoting their bloodless-surgery programs to the general public.” Hospitals around the world are discovering numerous benefits, particularly to patients, when implementing strategies that curtail the use of blood transfusions. Currently, thousands of doctors are treating patients without resorting to transfusions."

***DR. CROMBIE JR....quoted reference:

*** g97 2/8 p. 29 Watching the World ***

**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. 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. Now it’s thought to be a poison.”
--WE DO NOT purposely misquote anytime!

Y!FOOL

**WE NEVER have ever taken any quote out of context on purpose, and very very few times by mistake:

HERE is more for you to do what you wish with it:
*** hb p. 19 You Have the Right to Choose ***

--What about use of blood? No one who objectively examines the facts can deny that blood transfusions involve great risk. Dr. Charles Huggins, who is the director of transfusion service at the large Massachusetts General Hospital, made this very clear: “Blood has never been safer. But it must be considered unavoidably non-safe. It is the MOST DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE (my caps)we use in medicine.”—The Boston Globe Magazine, February 4, 1990.
--With good reason, medical personnel have been advised: “It is necessary to reevaluate as well the risk part of the benefit/risk relationship for blood transfusion and to seek alternatives.” (Italics ours.)—Perioperative Red Cell Transfusion, National Institutes of Health conference, June 27-29, 1988.

****EATING & TRANSFUSION OF blood are not new , and they still are viewed in the same way of sustaining or nourishment for the body, WHETHER through the mouth or veins:

*** hb p. 6 Blood—Vital for Life ***

**What of transfusing blood?
--Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: ‘Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.’

**WHEN YOU are warned to ABSTAIN from any antibiotics of any kind---
---DOES THAT exclude them being transfused OR does it mean IN ANY WAY?

Answer 1

I have had two serious operations, both without blood. In fact, my doctors told me that I had recovered far quicker for not taking blood than those who had the same operation and took blood,
These people who say that blood saves lives don't fully understand the implications of taking in blood. Blood only has a shelf life of 4 days, also it is foreign to the individual and the body is programmed to reject foreign tissue, which is why there is always difficulty in transplants etc. because there is only a slight chance that the body will accept the foreign organ, same with the blood. Many people who have a transfusion don't realise that their body is fighting the foreign blood and this is why they take longer to recover.
As for those who say that the scriptures refer to taking blood through the mouth and not intravenously. If you were an alcoholic and the Dr told you not to take any nmore alcohol because it would kill you, does that mean it is okay to take it through the vein rather than by mouth? Of course not!! It is the same with blood.
Some people in hospital who are unable to eat properly are fed intravenously. So whether by mouth or by intravenous, it is the same thing.
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses don't refuse all types of blood treatment. Only that involving whole blood.
I do wish people would make sure of their facts before they start shouting that Jehovah's Witnesses are murderers, or suicidal because they put their love of God before their own.

Answer 2

Why is this an issue?

Leave it up to each individual rather than making it a religious issue.

The ones who are against blood transfusions are against Jehovah's Witnesses for other reasons.

Where do people get the idea that refusing blood transfusions means dying?

What ever happened to refusing blood and living?

That sounds like a better choice.

Answer 3

Very good information Brother! I like the way you remind everyone that Luke himself was a Physician. That is a GREAT thing to think about, he being in the medical said to do what Jehovah said which was to ABSTAIN from blood, and being a Physician, he would want to be saving lives, but not at the risk of going what was against what God said. Here God had Luke write the Book of Acts, which in it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD... Not... Just abstain on these circumstances..... It is a very clear cut scripture. It would do everyone well to look up what Abstain means. Very good Brother.
Agape

Answer 4

My conscientious choice is to obey God's command whether or not it results in a temporary extension of my life. However, I do not believe it is a coincidence that medical science now finds bloodless medicine and surgery to be more effective than traditional blood transfusions. The Bible points out at Isaiah 48:17 that our creator teaches us to benefit ourselves. This is just one example of how obedience to God leads to benefits.

Answer 5

I am NOT (my caps) an EXPERT in Bible translation, and my belief is it does not mean to kill oneself. Eating blood will not give a person the "unforgivable sin". The ONLY unforgivable sin I KNOW OF is BLASPHEME OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. So's if you take of the blood, it is forgiven. So simple and so true and so honest huh. For a "unscholar" like me to know what's true and what's false. I know of a relgion practice that does believe in the "sacrifice of an innocent human (best to be a child)" and their blood must be drained (same as hemorraging). For every successful sacrifice, this group gains stronger powers. That's all I will say as not to perjure myself........no names mention. People must be on the ALERT and discern for themselves. Pray very hard and sincere to the know truth. That's the only advice I can give.
(Some people will consider it Satanic Occult practices)

P.S.
But if there is a new bloodless way (if its true), then go for it. I would personally choose that way too. SAFER.

Answer 6

Jehovah knows BEST!!!

"Abstain from blood" is as clear as any command can be. Why doesn't anyone say that the 'abstain from fornication' part means anything else but that? No one says that "It means abstain from fornication only if you do it in this way or that way"

Abstain means STAY AWAY!!!

I'm NOT for the Russian roulette- I'm for Acts 15!!!

Answer 7

There is no question that blood saves lives a person would be a fool to refuse a blood transfusion if it would save a life. A religion that would let a person die rather than give them a blood transfusion is foolish. I would not use a hospital that would refuse to give me blood as needed.

Answer 8

This refers to the eating of blood. Getting a blood transfusion is not the eating of blood. I wonder how long before they decide that this is not wrong. How many of their people will die first. You think they will apologize to the families who lost loved ones?

Answer 9

Well, I've seen this poison save more than one life, so I'll take my chances if I ever find myself in the position of losing profuse amounts of this tonic to say, a trauma or severe GI bleed......

I think maybe abstaining from consumption of blood, say via oral route, is the idea here.......

blood sustains life, it saves life in the event of blood loss

you're gonna find a lot more physicians speaking out in favor of transfusions than you'll find saying "avoid the poison that is blood".....................

Answer 10

Find me a source for the Crombie quote outside of the whatchtower publications because I would really like to know what the context was that it was taken out of.