Question about a Jehova Witnesses belief?

Question

A woman in my town had to have an emergency C-section. Her husband and her mother were there. Her husband and she were Jehova's Witnesses, and her mother is Catholic. During the C-section she started hemmoraging and she passed out. The doctors told her husband she needed a blood transfusion to save her life. Of course her mother said to give it to her, but it was up to the husband, who stated that JW's dont believe in blood transfusions and she couldn't have one. They tried other things, but told the husband again that she needed the transfusuion or she would die, but he stood by his beliefs. Well she ended up dying on the table, never meeting her baby. Her parents are very very upset over this obviously too. Now this of course has sparked a lot of conversation around town and I was wondering why blood transfusions are prohibited, even in cases like this. I just cant imagine that God wouldn't want a baby to be raised by his/her mom. Any insight and/or thoughts on this would be great.

I've never seen this question posted before, so sorry if it's "getting old". I'm being very genuine in asking this.

Answer 1

JW's have misapplied God's prohibition against eating the blood of an animal because according to the Bible it is the "life" of the animal.

The Bible doesn't say anything about blood transfusions because they were not around when it was written. They have added their own interpretation to God's command and this poor man, his deceased wife, his new baby, and his wife's family have reaped the consequences of bad theology.

Answer 2

It's likely that the hospital did not know how to treat this patient WITHOUT blood. If I had stayed at a certain hospital it would of been death for me as they did not know how to treat me without the use of blood and were not willing to consider it. My husband got me out of there and rushed me to a hospital which has a bloodless medicine program.

But to answer your original question it's a biblical command Lev. 17:14 (don't tell me that this doesn't apply to our day because back in Bible times they didn't have blood transfusions) When you can't eat they "feed" you through a feeding tube. The same applies with blood trans. Taking blood into your body through your veins is the equivalent of eating it. Contrary to popular belief there aren't thousands of JW kids dying because their parents don't believe in transfusion. All the more PROMINENT hospitals these days are practicing "bloodless medicine". Atlanta Medical Center, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic just to name a few. They aren't practicing bloodless medicine for the sake of nearly 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses (a small part of the population) but they have found that the Bible was correct all along. People who don't take blood recover quicker, have less complications and don't incur AIDS and Hepatitus from transfusions. The medical technology available today enables us to get excellent care without taking blood transfusions. For more info. http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcae/article...

Answer 3

In the Watchtower Society or Jehovah Witnesses,
It is believed that blood transfusions equate to blood consumption which biblically it is prohibited in the old testament as well prohibited in the new testament. So JW interpret blood transfusion with eating/nutrition.
The bible forbids consuming animal blood.

Answer 4

Acts 15:28,29
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things,  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. Good health to you!”

Acts 24:15
and I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

John 5:28, 29a
Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out

Answer 5

The only use for blood allowed in the Bible was for sacrifice for sins. Jesus was the only human who could give that and we only take "emblems" of his blood and body, not them literally. So it is respect for life, for sacrifice esp. for the ranson of God's son Jesus Christ....

I have had a c-section myself and then a VBAC with my next one (after I'd had carotid artery replacement). Sad stories of death are the rare ones, the exceptions, not the norm for us.

Refusing blood gives us much lower medical costs, much better care, shorter recovery time, no disease risk, etc.

We have to deal with separation from our families by being murdered for other things to: for example, we will not kill or harm others. In Nazi Germany, many of us were killed for that. Men were taken to prison areas for men, women to women areas and children were removed to youth camps to try to indoctrinate them with Hitler's ideas.

We are used to being this way. God's servants in the Bible often were too.....the Jews were scattered many times for obedience to God and their children, women taken as slaves, men killed. They continued to teach and witness and live exemplary lives wherever they were taken just as we JWs do today.

Debbie

Answer 6

I have hear that to be true about the Jehovah witnesses, I never believed it to be true in the catholic religion...When a person is in need of blood and it is a matter of life and death, no one would stop me from giving blood, even if they took the last drop , if it`s to save a life,which is so precious, god would never say it is forbidden to give blood to save a life...

Answer 7

It is sad what has happened to that couple. Nobody wants to lose a wife/mother/daughter for any reason at any time. I assume the question is why were they so adamant about the taking of blood, even if it were to save their own life? I will give you as detailed an answer as I deem necessary for you to have an accurate knowledge of the bible-based reasoning on this topic.

Let us look at the purpose of blood transfusions,
first by considering what is suggested by some
regarding Acts 15 and its admonishment to "abstain
from blood", as being merely the act of ingesting the
blood.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=ingestion :
1 entry found for ingestion.
Entry: absorption
Function: noun
Definition: taking in
Synonyms: assimilation, consumption, digestion,
drinking in, exhaustion, fusion, imbibing,
impregnation, incorporation, ingestion, inhalation,
intake, osmosis, penetration, reception, retention,
saturation, soaking up, suction, taking in Concept:
consuming/using
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition
(v 1.0.0)Copyright © 2002 by Lexico Publishing Group,
LLC. All rights reserved.

Basically, eating provides us with the function of
nourishment and sustenance for life. So, what of the
consumption or "ingestion" of blood?
The book _Blood-An Epic History of Medicine and
Commerce_ by Douglas Starr, p. xiv, has this to say:
"The Bible mentions blood more than 400 times: 'The
life of the flesh is in the blood,' says Leviticus,
equating blood with life itself. Blood is considered
so holy in the Old Testament that the Law specifically
forbids its consumption, which is why Jehovah's
Witnesses, who interpret the Bible literally, refuse
transfusions."

"In practicing transfusions one can only imitate the
example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus
in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous
transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body
of the infant through the umbilical vein. In
performing transfusion it is nothing else than
nourishing by a
shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in
the veins blood all made in place of taking food which
only turns to blood after several changes." G. W.
Crile; Hemorrhage and Transfusion: An Experimental and
Clinical Research; 1909, D. Appleton and Company: 153

Accordingly, in the Bible, blood is "life", it is
sacred and thus belongs to Jehovah. It is also clear
that while all animals were placed "in man's hand",
he was still not allowed to use the blood. Humans were
not given the authority to use this blood as they
wished. All blood from all souls was sacred. We can
conclude that any use of blood by man outside of God's
expressed Scriptural approval was unacceptable.
Primary components are obviously "blood," and can even
be categorized as "food." Therefore banning its use is
soundly derived from Scripture. Additonally, our
creator allows fractions to be passed between
circulatory systems, and non-cellular fractions do
not seem to be classed as a "food". This gives
evidence that perhaps they are not to be included in
the ban.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia II (1974) p.
89 defines the 4 major blood components as _plasma,
red blood cells (erythrocytes), white blood cells
(leucocytes), and platelets (thrombocytes)_. In recent
years fractions and extracts have been synthesized
from these components: Immunoglobulins, coagulation
factors, albumin, stem cells, interleucines etc. Are
these to be included with the 4 major components? We
don't know because these factors did not exist as
products in Biblical times, and therefore the answer
has been that
the use of these components is a matter of individual
conscience. This does not mean that anyone has
authorised the use of these components, but rather
that they have pointed out that they represent a "grey
area" where each individual must decide. Why so?

If we apply the Biblical mandate STRICTLY, then all
blood should be refused. The Society's position is
that the matter of blood fractions is not directly
resolved in Scripture and so this decision is
'outside' any definite doctrinal or theological
decision by the Society. Therefore the Witnesses'
precise stand is that blood is sacred and not to be
used for nourishment/sustenance/food," primary
components definitely are "blood" according to
Scripture. This category as "food" is explicitly
"Scriptural" and thus primary components are not to be
taken into our body. However, science and logic
dictates that fractions do not fall under the category
of "food/nourishment/sustenance" or considered "so
holy" by Jehovah. Since this modern knowledge creates
a "grey area" concerning the classification as
food/nourishment/sustenance, it is wisely left for
individuals to make that determination for themselves.
This is a loving provision that should be applauded,
but instead, is again used against Jehovah's
Witnesses by those seeking to further their own
potentially devious agenda. It is a damned if you do,
damned if you don't kind of scenario. It is another
form of persecution.

Consider again, Acts 15:29, which also demands that we
abstain from fornication (porneia), which many
struggle as to what is to be included within that
range. Here again, there may be some "grey areas" and
all groups decide as to what it is to be included in
the concept of porneia. So any "policy change" is
really a clarification of what should be included in
the group, as it is also with blood(haima).

Remember when Adam was given a vegetable diet for
nourishment and sustenance, Jehovah retained for
Himself the Tree of Knowledge to attest His
Sovereignty. When the way was later opened up to use
meat for nourishment and sustenance, Jehovah retained
a portion thereof also, the blood, to attest that He
alone is the Sovereign Giver of Life. Some therefore
put themselves in a satanic/adversarial position by
trying to "open up our eyes" and see that this form of
nourishment/sustenance/food "is good," "pleasant" and
"to be desired to make one wise." Genesis 3:4-6

Jehovah's Witnesses have been pioneers in the area of
"blood alternatives, and the world owes them a debt of
gratitude for paving the way for safer medicine. Some
may wish to try to keep people in the dark ages of
medicine, with no hope of triumph over and above
blood-borne diseases. But by the willingness that
Jehovah's Witnesses have demonstrated in conjunction
with the advanced medical field, the operating table
is a much safer place for all patients. "Blood
products are useful but carry their own set of
risks,...Thus whenever we can avoid using them, we
should - not only in Jehovah's Witness patients, but
in every patient." USC Health-Quarterly, Spring 2000
vol. 12 no.1

Jehovah's commandments are never burdensome. Rather,
they free us from so much of the ignorant ways of
mankind. His stipulation against the use of blood
demonstrates His divine wisdom and justice. He alone
is the giver of life, and He alone will secure an
everlasting future for all mankind, a mankind who
fears His words and respects His admonitions. They
will reap everlasting rewards in a world that no more
will need the use of "blood transfusion" or any form
of "modern" medicine.--Rev. 21:3,4

Answer 8

Isn't it kind of like seeing a man about to step in front of an on coming bus and saying nothing?

If you can prevent the man from stepping and front of the bus and you do not, are you not guilty of his death since you could have prevented it?

I don't see any difference between the man stepping in front of the bus and the woman needing blood. Both could have be saved from imminent death.

Answer 9

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, and they have a lot of Bible passages taken out of context to support there man made belief system. They also had to translate their own version of the Bible to fit their needs,

God be with you,
William, a bond-servant of Jesus
<'(((><

Answer 10

The JW's take that from a bible verse which is simple but apparently confuses them