Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions? It’s part of their religious beliefs.
That answer mustn’t be clear enough for the High Court, which (again) has ruled that doctors, this time at Cork University Hospital, may give a life-saving blood transfusion to premature, severely anaemic twins whose parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The 32-year-old mother of the twins told the High Court she wants the doctors to use an alternative to blood transfusion.
Last year, in a similar case, the Master of the Coombe Women’s Hospital sought a court order to give a mother a life-saving blood transfusion.
The woman later rejected the action on the grounds that it breached her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. She took the Coombe Hospital to court – for saving her life.
Today, the High Court again ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, saying the hospital acted lawfully.
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, most doctors will be practising ‘blood free’ medicine in the future.
It is forbidden to ingest someone else’s blood into the mouth or the veins, according to their interpretation of the Bible.
See if you can’t hear a slightly racist justification in this video.
About Sandra Ryan
Loading ...
What about Emergency blood?
Many Jehovah’s Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah’s Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.
FYI
1) JW’s DO USE many parts aka ‘fractions’ aka components of blood,so if it’s ‘sacred’ to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?
2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don’t donate back,more hypocrisy.
3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it’s no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose much of my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.
http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site
http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm Will you die for a lie?
—
Daniel born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah’s Witness
Forcing a transfusion on a competant, independant thinking adult is wrong.
Equally as wrong is an organized religion with over 6 million people that has a writing department that misquotes medical doctors, medical studies, and historians in order to make blood transfusions look ultra dangerous and bloodless surgery to look ultra safe.
Equally as wrong is an organized religion that: 1) shuns a follower who accepts blood, 2) has literature that tells other JWs to “rat out” a fellow follower who breaks the medical tenants, 3) has a hospital liasion team to patrol the hallways to make sure no blood goes in/out of the room, and 4) appoints JW/elder lawyers for the patient asking the patient to waive confidentiality so the lawyer can break lawyer-client confidentiality.
Yes, forcing a transfusion on a competant, independant thinking adult is wrong.
The JWs are brainwashed & coerced into the blood decision.
No blood!
The Watchtower says don’t ever take blood
It may save your life, but it’ll do you no good
For the bible tells us to take it is wrong
So if you love Jehovah, you need to stay strong
And never use anything that Jehovah has condemned
Even if it means that your life may end
Always remember, though we want you to live
Should you ever weaken, we do not forgive
So should you ever dare to choose
To use a treatment that’s against our rules
Be very aware, have no doubt
That those who defy us will be cast out
But the Watchtower’s blood rule is not based on truth
The scriptures they quote offer no proof
Still their followers listen, they choose to ignore
That the “no blood” prohibition is a dietary law
So Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to die
For another false doctrine, another Watchtower lie
The death toll mounts as more pay the price
Of the Watchtower’s demand for the ultimate sacrifice
55% of blood volume is allowable “fractions”. Of the remaining 45%, 99% is red blood cells, which is not allowed. How does this not violate their “Biblical” injunction when they are allowing more than half of whole blood? The Bible does not say that we can “eat” some some parts of blood but not others.
I’ve worked in animal hospitals and have had to “spin blood” down to obtain certain fractions needed by a patient. The red blood cells, being the heaviest part, fall to the bottom of the tube so they can be separated. Now, think for a minute: if the red blood cells comprise a little less than half of the volume, then double the blood volume must be spun down in order to glean 100% of the needed fractions (of course, this would be relative to how much the patient needs/has lost.)–more than double when we need a fraction which appears in a much smaller percentage. So, think about how much blood is spun down to help JWs who will donate nothing back to our blood banks!
What part of “abstain from blood” do people not understand.
This is our choice. The early Christians just had to “burn a little incense to a statue of Ceasar and recognize him as a god” and voila the could avoid being killed in the
ampitheaters. It was their choice. You use all the blood you want and if there is no blood for blood fractions so be it. IT IS OUR CHOICE. By the way a fraction is the smaller part of a whole.
Just like it is the choice of young men who blow themselves up or march off to war. IT IS THEIR CHOICE. Keep legislating FREE CHOICE and one Catholics will be told to kill the baby and save the mother when a choice has to be made to save one or the other.
The Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses forbade vaccinations for 15 years. Thousands, young and old, died because of this ruling.
Then “New Light”, it was claimed, allowed such medical treatment.
For years, transplants were forbidden, on pain of expulsion.
Transplants were referred to as “cannibalism”,but now its OK. How long will it be before the rulers of the Witnesses receive “New Light” about blood transfusions?
Meanwhile thousands die each year when they could be saved.
WHY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY BLOOD POLICY IS WRONG:
****A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: “If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins…” illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die.
A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.
****The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: “blood must be drained out” and to, “abstain from… blood” were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be “poured out” rather than eaten or drank. This act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement.
By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application.
In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A “living” donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another “living” individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what God wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?
****We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life?
In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: “And he said to them: “Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?” 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things.” The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: “So they (Pharisees) asked him “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.”
If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal’s life despite this “work” being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, “All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!”. Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal’s life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious.
Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper “respect” for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of “our own family members” to die due to such a strict stand by some religious body of men representing the WT Society.
****I’ve also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same “principle” of Jesus’ valuing a person’s LIFE over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her “unclean”, and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: “Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness….” Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed LETTER of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.
****Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society’s position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society’s view-) reads: 28 “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. Good health to YOU!”
The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute and eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from “things sacrificed to idols” Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there helps the reader to see that the “eating of food sacrificed to idols” was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute, universal meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer “Gentile” Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these traditional Jewish Christians, this decree was given.
This is also how bible scholars today understand these verses. The account at Acts 21:20-32 gives further evidence that this decree was given because the older, traditional Jewish Christians were being stumbled, since once again this very same prohibition found at Acts 15:28, 29 is repeated ten years later in Acts 21:25. Notice specifically how verses 24 brings out that this decree was given because the Jewish Christians thought Paul had discarded all Jewish law and customs which were causing these Jewish Christians to be upset and stumbled.
Paul’s words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 once again only adds further evidence that this command was not an eternal, universal law from God since again, he there states that “eating foods sacrificed to idols” (also included in Acts 15:28,29 along with blood) is a personal decision for each individual Christian.
The command to abstain from fornication however is an absolute, eternal, universal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures. And even if it were considered a universal, eternal command, which clearly it is not, that decree then would be regarding the EATING of animal blood, and not the receiving of blood fluid from a living human donor to another living human donor.
****If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul’s men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)
****I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.
****Another thing that muddies the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood “FRACTIONS” are now permissible.
Many of these are now considered a “conscience matter”. Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these “fractions” take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes.
Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common “fractions” still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a “concentrated” form of blood.
These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah’s Witnesses “abstain from blood”, since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world’s blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah’s Witnesses today? And two, if then, Jehovah’s Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are they then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that they now are allowed to tap into? And, why are they still not allowed to store their OWN blood? The pouring of blood “back to the ground” was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence they are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws.
It sure appears to me as well as most others then, that the JW’s no longer “abstain from blood”, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet they are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can they store their own blood.
****Another problem with “fractions” is that certain fractions such as “Albumin” ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not.
“Albumin” for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This “authorized” fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society.
Another fraction, Blood “Platelets” are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That’s not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society.
I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this “approved” and “disapproved” list with no explanations anywhere. It’s also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 98 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions.
It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they’re kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. “Hemopure” is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow’s Blood. How can JW’s be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use their own blood, or that of another living human donor?
So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here;
That blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood.
That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the “eating or drinking” of ANIMAL blood that is forbidden (not transfusions).
How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose.
That Saul’s men were not killed after eating blood.
How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions.
That no other religion on earth forbids blood transfusions based on what the bible actually says.
That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the “animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath” illustration he used, and the “Woman with a flow of blood” real-life example.
How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need.
That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands.
And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say “fractions” of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though they can use cow’s blood.
It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society’s position on blood transfusions today.
****ADDITIONALLY:
The end of the system was predicted, in writing, in these years: 1874, 1875, 1881, 1888, 1914, 1915, 1918, (could occur in 1920), 1925, (“resurrection of Princes” in 1929), 1932, 1940, (“any day now” in 1942), (“why not now” in 1951), 1975, and before the generation that was born in 1914 dies, which was dropped in 1996 after it was clearly another false prediction. Every one of these predictions, in writing, has proved false. People sold homes, gave up opportunities to start families, secure employment, gave up opportunities for an education and instead spread a message of doom that was simply untrue with each prediction made. All of these failed.
The WT Society has a long history of medical mistakes such as not allowing vaccinations and organ transplants and now the complete fiasco on blood and blood fractions. We also have the Alternative Service prohibition which was in force for 50 years, where tens of thousands of JW’s went to prison rather than accept non-combat alternatives to military service solely because they were assigned by the military. This was reversed in 1996.
Despite the numerous errors in doctrine, medical mistakes, weird science end of the world false predictions and unscriptural blood transfusion bans that fill its pages of history, the society still demands full and complete support of its policies and doctrines today. Notice this comment from a 5/1/72 WT (page 272): “That they [Jehovah's Witness] must adhere absolutely to the decisions and scriptural understandings of the Society because God has given it this authority over his people.”
So, in the end, we have what many would consider as extremely damaging facts that undermine the Watchtower Society’s claim that it alone is God’s one true faith on earth today. That core belief is in my opinion the GLUE that keeps everything else together. Without THAT foundation of belief that this religious organization IS the one truth on earth, everything else involved with the religion begins to fall apart. The willingness to be loyal despite doubts lessens and lessens.
This is also why the Watchtower Society strongly discourages any kind of out-of-house critical examinations. These examinations often expose the very poor historical record. It is also, in the opinion of many, why those that formally leave the faith are considered apostate and have to be shunned. This shunning policy minimizes the possibility of critical information from being shared with other JW’s.
When I personally learned about the mistakes on Vaccinations and Organ Transplants it simply damaged the credibility of the organization as a whole. It was at that point that an honest, THOROUGH examination of the Watchtower Society began on my part.
An examination that only made things much, much worse in the end.
If this is God’s true and only channel, how then can they be so wrong, so often, on doctrine, medical issues, end of the world predictions, and yet still demand complete obedience from its members or face risk of complete shunning?
This is also why I chose to leave the faith altogether one year ago. The bible has no such list of wacky opinions, medical blunders or false prophecies despite being written thousands of years ago. The Watchtower history on the other hand is FILLED with these very things; wacky ideas, medical embarrassments and many false end of the world statements. All written within the last 100 or so years.
(WRITTEN IN FEB 2006 AND TURNED IN WITH MY DISASSOCIATION LETTER)
The sleazy watchtower $ociety only cares about its image,devotion of its followers,and plundering the time money and assets of followers.
Just like a cult in every way…..
What makes religious belief superior to any other kind of belief?
Can I legitimise any belief I hold, no matter how bizarre, by claiming it’s my religion?
Can I then impose that belief on an innocent child by preventing, for example, a life-saving transfusion?