Answer Detective Poll: Should Blood Transfusions be Refusable?

Question

What do you believe? Think of the Jehovah's Witness faith, think of contaminated blood. Think of life or death. Think of whether a parent of jehovahs witness faith should be allowed to give the choice of this for their children.

Answer 1

I think yes.

If a certain doctor would like to commit fornication with your own child first, before curing him, are you as a parent will abide? Just like fornication, the use of blood in the body is one of things we have to abstain from according to Acts 15.

Here are some excerpt from a news.

“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?

Answer 2

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I refuse all blood products (and plasma). What I don't refuse is to be treated medically by a competent, well educated Doctor.
We have a Liason (sp- sorry) comity who helps us set up treatment in reputable hospitals with a knowledgeable staff.
In cases of emergency, however, that isn't always possible (unfortunately) and sometimes we pay the ultimate price.

I would refuse blood and blood products for my 4 children as well, as would my husband who has a Ph.D and is a practicing M.D. Well educated (though not necessarily religious) people sometimes chose to stay away from blood simply because of the risks associated with it.
Unfortunately, where I live in West Virginia (USA) I have no real rights as a parent. My children would receive a transfusion even if I object.

Answer 3

There are so many risks!!! But you also have so many other options besides getting blood. According to the textbook Modern Blood Banking and Transfusion Practices by Dr. Denise M. Harmening, "delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction" can occur "in a patient who has previously been sensitized by transfusion, pregnancy, or transplant." In such cases, the antibodies that cause a patient to react adversely to a transfusion are "not detectable by standard pretransfusion methods." According to Dailey's Notes on Blood, hemolysis "can be triggered even when only a small amount of incompatible . . . blood is administered. When renal shutdown does occur the patient is slowly poisoned because the kidneys cannot remove impurities from the blood." Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes. Though most surgeons have claimed that they gave blood only when absolutely necessary, after the AIDS epidemic arose their use of blood dropped rapidly. An editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (September 1988) said that "one of the few benefits of the epidemic" was that it "resulted in various strategies on the part of patients and physicians to avoid blood transfusion." A blood-bank official explains: "What has changed is the intensity of the message, the receptivity of clinicians to the message (because of an increased perception of risks), and the demand for consideration of alternatives." —Transfusion Medicine Reviews, October 1989. Note, there are alternatives! This becomes understandable when we review why blood is transfused.

Answer 4

No one should be in the position to keep any one else from life. To me it is the same as murder, I suspect, that it is the same to God as well.

If I had needed a Blood transfusion, as a child, I would not be here today. Some might think that is a good thing, but that is for another post.

Millions of Christians read the Bible every day, and they do not see an edict on blood transfusions in it. the Witnesses allow a Group of Men, with an agenda to decide for them what the Bible says. The Governing body, use to require witnesses to give their lives, instead of having vaccinations.....
They were wrong on that one......changed it......they use to also require that you die instead of having an organ transplant......called it...cannibalism.....they were also wrong on that one....changed it......

Not so long ago...they required JW's to die, and receive no parts of blood be transfused.....they were wrong...they have changed it......I, would take my chances if I were a Witness(thankfully, I am no longer one)and have a blood transfusion, because in2 countries, they have already made it a matter of conscience....and will do so in the near future in all countries.....I have watched them for years.....studied them for decades. and I have seen how they are tossed to and for as with the wind.

Answer 5

Any person competent to make such decisions for themselves should have the right to refuse blood transfusions on whatever basis they choose.

As for parents denying a transfusion for their child, even a transfusion from parent to child, is a much stickier issue. As the state can take guardianship of a child away from parents, they can use this legal maneuver to save a child's life. But they, and the advocates for the child, have to tread carefully as they can open themselves up for painful lawsuits.

Answer 6

In a life-threatening, emergency situation, where in the medical opinion of the attending physician, without the transfusion, it is foreseeable that the minor child will suffer serious injury or death, then I think the state has a compelling interest in the child's welfare, and would be justified in overruling the religious objections of the parents.

This should be rare, though. In many cases, the parents are able to arrange elective surgery in a JW medical facility, where they have work-arounds for transfusions, then, sure, let them do it their way.

Doing it their way should not cost a child his or her life, would be my bottom line.

Answer 7

I had a blood transfusion when I was seriously ill as a child, I would have died otherwise. I like life and enjoying living, so would not refuse one if I needed it however I can only speak for myself. I do not agree that parents should willingly allow their child to pass away because it is against their beliefs.

Answer 8

i am not jehovas witness, but i studied with them long ago and i believe they are right ont he money regarding their doctrine of blood. i had a class during college regarding processing crime scenes with blood. an interesting thing the dna expert said- if you have a blood transfusion, your dna is forever changed. it doesnt cycle out like engine oil. so if blood dna and fingerprints are unique to each person in the world, to alter it for a selfish reason if like playing God. we will pay for it too. that is why we can get aids, hiv, and all kinds of diseases from blood. not only that, but we take on the characteristics of the donor. their demons, personality etc.
great question! and yes i believe JW's should be able to make that choice- even for their children.

Answer 9

I think refusing any medical treatment should automatically wave the right to sue. I can kinda see where they are coming from with the blood transfusions as they make me a little nervous. It should be up to the parent to decide, not the government.

Answer 10

sure if you are of sound mind and body and refuse for yourself-everyone should have the right to die---but you dont get to choose for someone else-just my thoughts-smile and enjoy the day-as for parents choosing for their kids-again yes-if i can tell them in person without the law interfering what is wrong with this picture----kids are to be protected and nutured-not pawns in religious beliefs

Answer 11

I think they should be allowed to refuse a transfusion, if that's their belief. But obviously it should be discouraged, in the interest of preserving life.

Just my opinion.