Would you rather condemn your child to death than allow it to live through a blood transfusion if that was the only way of saving its life?
And surely if you refuse the blood transfusion that could count as manslaughter if the child dies as a result not having the blood? This is a quick question to Moses... If your child or someone you loved were laying infront of you dying and a Dr told you that the ONLY I repeat ONLY way to save them was through a blood transfusion, would you then refuse... if this was you'r only child would u refuse and allow them to die? yes, they would allow their children to die and they do. In fact, they have martyrized their dead children on othe cover of one of their Awake magazines (AWAKE! May 22, 1994). It's disgusting. It amazes me that JWs spend so much effory trying to prove that blood transfusions are scary, deadly disease spreading monsters that are killing more people than they save.
But the JW ban on blood is based on their interpretation of scripture. It is not a medical stance. It is a religious stance. Even if blood transfusions were the safest and surest way t cure every known diseaae, they would still be required to shun them.
So JWs, why are you trying to pass yourselves off as medical experts on all things bloodless when it doesn't matter whether blood transfusions are safe or not, you still have to follow what your leaders are saying that the Bible means by abstaining from blood.
Is your authority the Bible, or the Journal of the American Medical association.
MAKE UP YOUR MINDS! there are ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusions. the bible clearly states on the stand we take against blood, hence we refuse blood. okay, i have a question for you. answer me this:
the only way to save your child was through a blood transfusion. but, the blood was tested HIV positive, and it is the only type of blood available for, lets say the next two hours. but your child needs the blood now, if he doesn't get it within the next fifteen minutes, he dies. what would you do?
it can't count as manslaughter. i know a lot of doctors who refuse blood for themselves, and their families. so what are you going to say, that they are murderers too? give us a break, we refuse blood and accept alternatives. we don't want our children to die, but we can't accept blood. don't you think that our Creator would know what's best for us? that's why He clearly stated to refuse blood. Maybe its becoz any living animals soul is in the blood. So perhaps taking someones blood is like inheriting part of their DNA or something.Perhaps if the person was a killer, you might start having those fantansies as well....(.just a thot.)
Iam not a witness and am not against transfusions, but i think its a bit weird. what jw's do is not associate the things strangled with the abstain from blood part. both are in the same verse for a reason. when this was written there were no refrigerators. if you strangled your food to death, as opposed to say cutting its throat and bleeding it to death, the blood would putrefy within the animal. this would cause sickness if you eat it. but they don't make this association even though God clearly does. so they take it to mean blood is bad. unfortunately for them they just do not know the truth of the matter. God associated the 2 things in the very same verse for a specific reason. so we do not take it wrong. but then again this is from a "religion" (and i use the term loosely) that has never been granted a copyright to their main book of scriptures. it is just proof that mark was right, "many will be deceived." You really should research more before beginning a rant on a subject like this. You act as if it is a guaranteed death sentence to refuse a blood transfusion. That is either a misinformed statement or an outright lie. The vast majority of blood transfusions today (something like 90+ percent), are not even necessary, but the doctors give them anyways. And there are many, many alternatives to taking in human blood. In fact, many doctors today are leaning more and more towards bloodless surgery techniques, because they are much safer. And yes, I agree with Moses Beyond. You condemn us for maintaining our integrity to God by not breaking his commandments, even though in some VERY rare instances it may cost us a life, and even though God specifically promises that he can resurrect the dead. Do you not truly believe this? Do you not really have faith in God? -2Cor 1:9, 10; and yet, you seem to offer no complaints about offering up thousands of children as sacrifices to your own God, the God of nationalism?
"Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Pagans and Atheists have all sacrificed their lifes in war!"
Yes! I agree with you! But does the fact that they ALL send their children out to murder each other, even if the enemy happens to be a member of the same faith, justify that murder? No! Thats ridiculous! They are all wrong for doing it, and especially with the support of their own clergy! When it comes to nationalism and spirituality today, God takes a back seat to loyalty to a man's nation. Very sad.
http://www.noblood.org/
http://www.jonbarron.org/heart-health-pr...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3003...
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/... I believe that THE MENTAL HEALTH SECTION sould be altered. Firstly I believe that Doctors should be able to OVERRULE JW decisions that involve persons under the age of 18 ..
Adults should be only allowed to refuse transfusion If they can prove that they are not insane.. you cant actually prove it, but an ANOREXIC who appears to be sane can end up FORCED FED.. sEE MY POINT..
as for 'moses' point aboy JW having the lowest risk of HIV -Well, HIV from blood products is rare in the western world and quite frankly i would rather live with 20 years and beyond with HIV than dies within minutes of blood loss... The verse relating to not taking human blood was meant to stop the practice of cannibalism, which in those ancient days was a common practice. The difference in getting a transfusion is that the blood is freely given and does not harm the person donating it. At what point does life become immoral. What if we could artificially save everyone's lives and the population grew until there was 1 person per Square foot. Would you then still be trying to keep everyone alive? Would you really want someone elses blood in you? EW! Here in the major city near me, they have a bloodless surgery wing at the hospital. That is def. where I and my children will go if I ever need surgery. There are alternatives to blood and it is much safer. It is better to obey God and die in this life than to disobey and lose everlasting life in paradise. They consider humans cheap and easy to produce. Better to lose a few by letting them die than to admit they were wrong and lose many more because they leave. http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/article_0... as an old saying goes, religion is the route of all evil, Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23-25; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 28, 29; 21:25.
What Some Doctors Say
Dr. Joachim Boldt
'Bloodless surgery is not only for Jehovah's Witnesses but for all patients. I think that every doctor should be engaged in it.'鈥擠r. Joachim Boldt, professor of anesthesiology, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
"While blood transfusions are safer today than in the past, they still pose risks, including immune reactions and contracting hepatitis or sexually transmitted diseases."鈥擠r. Terrence J. Sacchi, clinical assistant professor of medicine.
Dr. Terrence J. Sacchi
"Most physicians have knee-jerk reactions with transfusions and just give them out liberally and indiscriminately. I don't."鈥擠r. Alex Zapolanski, director of cardiac surgery at the San Francisco Heart Institute.
"I don't see any conventional abdominal operation that in a normal patient routinely requires blood transfusion."鈥擠r. Johannes Scheele, professor of surgery, Jena, Germany.
The Growing Demand for
Bloodless Medicine and Surgery
"All those dealing with blood and caring for
surgical patients have to consider bloodless surgery."
鈥擠r. Joachim Boldt, professor of anesthesiology, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
THE tragedy of AIDS has compelled scientists and physicians to take additional steps to make the operating room a safer place. Obviously, this has meant more stringent blood screening. But experts say that even these measures do not ensure zero-risk transfusions. "Even as society expends great resources on making the blood supply safer than ever," says the magazine Transfusion, "we believe patients will still try to avoid allogeneic [donor] transfusions simply because the blood supply can never be completely safe."
Not surprisingly, many doctors are becoming wary of administering blood. "Blood transfusions are basically no good, and we are very aggressive in avoiding them for everybody," says Dr. Alex Zapolanski, of San Francisco, California.
The general public too is becoming aware of the dangers of transfusions. Indeed, a 1996 poll revealed that 89 percent of Canadians would prefer an alternative to donated blood. "Not all patients will refuse homologous transfusions as do Jehovah's Witnesses," states the Journal of Vascular Surgery. "Nonetheless, the risks of disease transmission and immunomodulation offer clear evidence that we must find alternatives for all of our patients."
Blood and Jehovah's Witnesses
For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.* But they do accept鈥攁nd vigorously pursue鈥攎edical alternatives to blood. "Jehovah's Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment," said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. "As a group, they are the best educated consumers the surgeon will ever encounter."
Doctors have perfected many bloodless surgery techniques on Jehovah's Witnesses. Consider the experience of cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley. Over a period of 27 years, his team performed bloodless open-heart surgery on 663 of Jehovah's Witnesses. The results clearly demonstrate that cardiac operations can be successfully performed without the use of blood.
True, many have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal of blood. But a guide published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland calls the Witnesses' position "a sign of respect for life." In truth, the Witnesses' rigorous stand has been a major force behind safer medical treatment becoming available for all. "Jehovah's Witnesses in need of surgery have shown the way and exerted pressure for improvements in an important sector of the Norwegian health service," writes Professor Stein A. Evensen, of Norway's National Hospital.
To assist doctors in providing treatment without the use of blood, Jehovah's Witnesses have developed a helpful liaison service. Presently, more than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery. "Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses' Hospital Liaison Committees," notes Dr. Charles Baron, a professor at Boston College Law School.
The information on bloodless medicine and surgery that has been compiled by Jehovah's Witnesses has been of benefit to many in the medical field. For example, in preparing material for a book entitled Autotransfusion: Therapeutic Principles and Trends, the authors asked Jehovah's Witnesses to provide them with information about alternatives to blood transfusion. The Witnesses gladly granted their request. With gratitude the authors later stated: "In all our reading on this subject, we have never seen such a concise, complete list of strategies to avoid homologous blood transfusion." Jehovah's Witnesses follow the bible when they abstain from the use of blood. Acts 15: 28,29 says that in no uncertain terms it is one of the things that God requires. Since most religions do not teach that we are expected to live by the bible (not just what we want to do) many people are not aware of how serious God feels about this issue. He calls blood the source of life and instructs his people that it must be poured out and returned to Him. Leviticus 17: 13, 14
Now, the issue comes up when a doctor says that your child (or you) need a blood transfusion, what do we do? Well we realize that a doctor is interested in saving lives just as we are and so we gladly let them know that we accept non-blood alternatives. Where doctors used to believe that only blood transfusions saved lives, they are learning that this is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses have spearheaded educational programs that teach medical professionals as well as non-Witnesses who understand just how dangerous blood transfusions are (and so they wish to avoid them) the many alternatives out there. All over the world their are Jehovah's Witnesses and doctors working together to make sure patients have the best care available while respecting their wishes. This has saved many from getting blood born illnesses and has often time sped up recovery of the sick person. Once upon a time blood transfusions were given for every type of surgery. Now you can have open heart surgery without it. This means you don't have to worry about getting AIDS or Hepititis, or any other disease that can be spread through blood. Some people remember when the last pope was shot and even he received bad blood.
For anyone that is genuinely interested in not only why Jehovah's Witnesses avoid blood, or for that matter, learning more about safe alternatives for themselves and their families, the website I have at the bottom is the BEST place to go because it is the ONLY website endorced by Jehovah's Witnesses. The brochure "How Can Blood Save Your Life" will be sent free to anyone that asks for it. As well mentioned there are many, many alternatives to using blood, and we exhaust all possibilities without going against God's law in the Bible. Bloodless surgeries are now possible, cell salvage etc. Jehovah's Witnesses are well educated as to their options.
When you trust in God's promise that THIS life is not all there is, you know that to do things Jehovah's way will bring blessings in an abundance. I would rather give my children the possibility of life without end in the promised Paradise then to break God's clear laws against blood and stop mine or my children's lives in their tracks. I have implicit trust in my Creator's ability and desire to reverse any negative effects experienced now, even death, then an imperfect human to whom no salvation belongs.
How about those that DID take blood transfusions and contracted a disease like AIDS or Hepatitis - would you then be asking them this same question and wish to charge them with manslaughter?
Since you work in the medical field you no doubt realize that not all blood transfusions have the same result as yours. So please don't attempt to assign 0% mortality rates to blood transfusions. As you yourself said, "when it COULD save a life"...Jehovah CAN and WILL give us life...forever if we remain faithful. You say "a great number"?
Might we compare that to the "thousands and thousands" in the USA ALONE who died as a result of transfusions because they were HEMOPHILIACS?
Over ONE HALF of the known hemophiliacs, CHILDREN INCLUDED, died of AIDS due to transfusions and concentrated factor dosage that they took innocently as a form of treatment.
And the other half have a great majority with HIV. So now they are contending with HIV and hemophilia.
BUT my husband, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses had neither the transfusion or factor treatments. And not only is he still alive, but he does not have HIV or AIDS.
He also has other relatives who have hemophilia. They are also Witnesses. AND they are alive with no HIV and AIDS.
They were and are successfully treated with blood alternatives.
Has it been an issue he has dealt with successfully more than once? Yes, he has had 30 surgeries in 30 years. Several of these MAJOR surgeries. Although you could say any surgery for a hemophiliac is major, but I'm saying major as far as any other surgery.
Even dental work is a problem, but has been dealt with successfully.
So, "a great number"? Does it even measure up to the losses of life for the relatively small group of hemophiliacs?
And remember that CHILDREN were among those who lost their lives in this group.
EDIT:
To answer comment below. It is religious and we have the medical field to support us that it makes sense. Jehovah knew what he was telling us before we knew it ourselves. And now we are seeing just how precious and unique each person's blood is per the medical field. So they are intertwined. One supports the other.
Same goes for abortions. Religious and medical. Inseparable. Jws are so right on this that they are wrong. The ransom sacrifice is there to cover the sins of mankind. If a father or mother allowed a blood transfusion and repented after their child had recovered, God would forgive them. He does not expect us to be perfect in an imperfect world. Also the context in which the bible discussed blood is not that of the context of medicine. Right? Is context not important? during that era, in God way, it is not allow because it is not NATURAL. but at today era is ALREADY NATURAL.
note: that is why disease such as Aids was brought in by God to balace up for God (Father & Mother Nature) to take the next natural coarse. I agree with Stitch. If I was a JW and had a sick child needing a blood transfusion, I would go against the bizaar JW laws and save my child. It's called "Gods will" yet another point to why religion doesnt work let 'em... more blood for the rest of us |
