Do you think it should be illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse life-saving blood transfusions?

Question

For the record, I'm not trying to start anything...I'm on the fence on this one. Just curious what others think.

Fred: I'm not a religious person.

Answer 1

Ever heard of the Darwin Awards??? If anyone is stupid enough to refuse treatment to save their lives; we are all better off!!

Answer 2

I understand that this is an emotional issue for many. But the structure of your question suggests that blood transfusions are inherently life-saving. The implication is, therefore, that the person refusing the transfusion is refusing life – the person is suicidal. That is quite a leap. It is also wholly inaccurate.

Most people accept the premise that when it comes to our bodies, we ought to have autonomy – we ought to be able to decide what medical procedures and treatments we will accept and which we will reject. Thus, there are such things as DNR (as mentioned by a few posters above). But when it comes to blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses, the response is usually emotional, knee-jerk, and unreasonable.

The problem lies in the fact that either through ignorance or indolence, both the medical community in general and the media fail to give people all the information that is readily available. What do I mean by that? This: despite the fact that all procedures can be done without blood transfusions; despite the fact that literally thousands and thousands of people refuse them and are quite fine and quite alive; despite the fact that a doctor cannot guarantee you will live with a blood transfusion any more than he can guarantee you will die without one (no matter his protestations); despite the fact that there are medical centers in the country devoted to non-blood medical treatment; despite the fact that medical treatment without blood transfusions are better for the patient; despite the fact that the medical community is actually moving toward total non-blood medical treatment; and despite the fact that blood transfusions are inherently dangerous and can, and often do, kill the patients, blood transfusion is still seen as a miracle drug and the situation is always presented as an either/or issue accompanied by this unrelenting and erroneous statement: “either you take it or you die.” Refusal is also seen as stupid, cultish, selfish and suicidal. Nothing could be further from the truth; still, this canard prevails.

No, it should not be illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even if it is suggested that the transfusion will save their life. As for children, some people feel they should be forced to have this so-called “life-saving” procedure because they are too young to make religious decisions. Usually, children are too young to make decisions period. Isn’t that so? That is why they have parents. Why is it acceptable for parents to rear their children and make the decisions EXCEPT when it comes to blood transfusions? How do we suppose parents would feel if every time their decision concerning their child was second-guessed, the government intervened, the child was removed from their care, and someone else’s decision was enforced? We would balk at such a situation! Indeed, we’d be screaming about parental rights! Why then do people suppose it is perfectly acceptable, indeed – absolutely necessary – to do so when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions?

I am reminded of a case in Canada where a young teenager refused blood transfusions even though the medical personnel insisted she would die without them. So they went to court, removed the child from her parents’ care and forced her to have over two dozen blood transfusions. When it became obvious that the miracle drug wasn’t being very miraculous, that is, it wasn’t extending or saving her life, do you know what they did? They relinquished their government-mandated control over the young teen, gave her back to her parents, and sent her home to die. And that is just what she did. So much for life-saving.

When this hot button topic comes up (and it always does), it would be good to remember that rarely is anything such an either/or issue. And it would also be beneficial to arm oneself with a bit more knowledge than is provided by emotion-agitating headlines.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Who ever said that having a blood transfusion would save a person life?

I work in the medical field and witness blood transfusion daily, IT IS NOT A LIFE SAVER.

If you guys really know how nasty blood is, the smell alone will knock you off your feet.

I put a blood transfusion on the same lines as having a urine transfusion to help your kidneys. (there is no such thing I just said this as a exp., but doesn't it sound disgusting?

Even if there was such a law Jehovah's Witnesses obey the laws of Jehovah, there is no compromise.

Acts. 5:29: "WE MUST OBEY GOD AS RULER RATHER THAN MAN."

Acts 15:29: "KEEP ABSTAINING FROM BLOOD."



Do you think it should be illegal for anyone with a teenager daughter to refuse the new drug that will possible protect their daughter from cervical cancer? (so she can be one less).


Or should each family make the choice that is right for them?

Answer 4

Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”

All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.

Answer 5

I dont think it should be illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions because this is their religion and they have lived this way for centries and besides i think they have a great point in not accepting other human blood due to many diseases that runs in blood,this is why they only recieve synthetic blood.

Answer 6

No
1) In the United States we have the Constitutional right of freedom of religion, although liberals try to reinterpret that right to mean freedom from any kind of religious influence. Jehovah witnesses should be able to practice their religion even though I don't agree with them on the transfusion issue.

2) No one should be forced to undergo any medical procedure they don't want to. It is their body, not yours, and not Uncle Sam's.

Answer 7

People are allowed to refuse life-saving procedures no matter what religion they are from. This goes from refusing CPR, signing DNR's, refusing operations, to refusing to be put on a ventilator.

The only time I think it should be called into question is when someone's religious belief is resulting in the person's child to not be able to receive care. Then I'm on the fence.

Answer 8

I don't think it should be illegal in the least. I am a DNR (do not resuscitate) and not for religious reasons. Why force anyone to accept any lifesaving procedures? I find it unacceptable to not allow your minor children to receive life saving medical assistance though. Their right to live should trump the parent's right to practice their religion.

Answer 9

There should be some kind of law regarding minor children. Maybe after the age of l8 they could make their own decisions, but up until then they'd have to take the blood transfusions.

Answer 10

If they are over the age of 18 I think they should be able to make the decision on their own, But if a Jehovah's child needs a blood transfusion to live, I think it should be mandatory.