14 year old jehovas witness refuses transfusion- dies soon after?

Question

in seattle a devout 14 year old boy died recently cause his faith does not allow transfusions. he had highly treatable cancer. blood transfusion and other treatments would have likely cured him, ( 70% success rate) judge ruled him competent to decide his own fate. christians say they are willing to die for their faith. what do you make of this?

i guarentee somewhere in the bible it says no exchanges of blood or something similiar to that

Answer 1

What a waste of a life due to a cult. Nothing new.

Answer 2

Interestingly, both Jehovah's Witnesses AND more and more secular governments believe that so-called "mature minors" should be allowed to make educated decisions regarding their own medical care.

But who should make such a decision for a three-year-old, regarding which medical alternative should be used?

It would seem that when parents give clear evidence of studiously working to protect and prolong their child's life and best interests, the parents should be given the deference and respect befitting any other serious family decision. Sadly, anti-Witness critics ignore two facts.

1. Many MULTIPLES more have died as a result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.

2. Medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells.

Why should government or a handful of doctors insist that *IT* should have the only right to choose a course of treatment, especially when responsible parents are simply and thoughtfully requesting a different course of treatment? A Jehovah's Witness may accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).


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.ca/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.ca/e/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 3

People can have strong beliefs. If you strongly believed that you would never see eternal salvation. if you had a blood transfusion, you wouldn't get one either. It's not for us to decide what someone should believe.
He died with peace and comfort of mind. He left this world knowing he would see his savior.
I don't think he should have died, but he knew what he was doing. A judge even said this boy was of strong mind, body, and character. Even his parents dropped the appeal after talking to him. So I think he had to have been very aware of what he was doing, and even his estranged parents thought so.
He now knows peace, and has no pain. Lets just be happy he had a death on his terms. Not all of us are so lucky.

Answer 4

I feel for the boy and his family. He did what he felt was right. I know that if that judge is anything like the one that talked to my friend and his sister during a custody hearing, the judge strived to see what the Boy himself wanted.

My father refused blood, as did his mother over the years. They both were told they would die without it, (often quite rudely). She was told that dozens of times over a 10 year span. She was on Dialysis. She often almost died. She held firm to her beliefs, and was often surprised at how Certain the doctors were she would Die, even after her surviving dozens of times.

My father was told by one doctor he would die without blood. He asked her if it is against her beliefs to eat cows, and someone told her she would die if she didn't eat one, Would she?? After this another doctor let us know that chances are even with blood he would've died.

From what we saw he actually survived better without it.

What was most important to him was that he followed his beliefs. He had a satisfaction about it. I think that helped him feel better.

Just my thoughts.

Answer 5

70% means 30% failure. It is no sure thing blood transfusions will cure without complications anyway.

It is of more importance to be faithful to God's Laws. There is a 100% chance of a resurrection by Jehovah for staying faithful until death to life on a cleansed earth.

Christians served as snacks for lions in Roman times. JWs in Nazi camps died for their faith as well. Even though any could have gotten out by simply renouncing their faith, they remained and died. Should we not do as they in keeping faithful? The age doesn't matter. He chose who he would serve. It was Jehovah and he will not be forgotten by Him.

Answer 6

I'm always torn when it comes to this question. I don't believe that people should be forced to violate their faith, but this is a child not an adult.

What it comes down to for me is that children mimic the faith of their parents (generally speaking). Until they are in their mid to late teens they don't usually investigate faith and make important choices about religion. A 14 year old who is a Jehovah's Witness may grow up to switch to a different religion--so I don't think that children should make life or death decisions based solely on religious reasons.

I think that the state should have taken guardianship and forced the transfusion. That is a horrible thing to do to anyone, but the child is most likely not capable of deciding something so important. And in this case the parents, acting for solely religious reasons, are not acting to benefit the child's future here on earth.

If the cancer had recurred when the child was grown then he would be in a position to make appropriate choices about his medical care using his religion (whatever that ended up being) as one factor in the decision.

Answer 7

It sounds like he took his religion very seriously,I think it is sad that he died but if he believed it would be a sin to have the transfusion then what choose did he have?

Answer 8

A person has the right to live their life AS THEY CHOOSE so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of another. And if anyone ever hooks me up to a life-support I WILL come back to haunt them when I do finally die. I also have the right to not take any medication prescribed to me. It is MY body and I will do with it as I see fit. My Life, My choice. His life, His choice.

It's a very simple concept.

Answer 9

I for one must say that when I saw that article, I was sooo proud of that boy!!! He took a stand, even in the face of death to do what is pleasing to Jehovah God. I am also so proud of those parents. How hard it must have been!!!! Yet, they made the choice to decide to be on Jehovahs side. They know that here in the near future they will be able to welcome back their son from the dead because they did not comprimise their faith and they taught their little one wisely.

Answer 10

Morgaine: Thank you for your fair response. I wud add, they would allow their should to go off to die on a battle field and say it was their personal choice.

Disgustin'Justin': Are you saying blood transfusions are actually SAFE? There are reasons medical professionals increasingly will not accept blood transfusions themselves. It also explains why they are working on creating a synthetic blood. Please do a little research.

Disgustin'Justin': Back to you. So I repeat, are you saying that blood is safe? People are still contracting AIDS from tainted blood; they are still contracting Hep C and other blood-borne diseases. Blood shortages are not the only reason for creating a synthetic.

Answer 11

It is very sad since faith requires accepting for truth statements that cannot be proven to be truth. People that have very strong faith cannot usually be persuaded to see things any other way.

However it is the right of any patient to refuse treatment for any reason as long as the patient is old enough to satisfy the local and state laws and is mentally competent.