your faith decided to have one? What would happen if they were not sorry they had the transfusion? Would they be asked to leave or what?
Thank you for any and all answers. By not sorry I mean they are glad they had it because they are alive. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion 鈥渕ay result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian鈥?(Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, p. 55; emphasis added). Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion (Ibid., p. 54), but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood (Watchtower, February 15, 1964, p. 127). In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:
* I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives. (card on file)
The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28鈥?9. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously (Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses and the Question of Blood, p. 18).
A large number of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower鈥檚 regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses take the Society鈥檚 prohibition, Paul Blizard tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, 鈥淚 hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood鈥?(Witnesses of Jehovah, p. 197). Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion (Ibid.).
News from Bulgaria
On March 9, 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights accepted a settlement between the government of Bulgaria and the Christian Association of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses in which Bulgaria, in exchange for a significant concession from the Witnesses, agreed to recognize the Witnesses as an official religious organization.
The Bulgarian government, in order to reach an agreement, will now provide civilian service for conscientious objectors to military service (Information Note No. 148, <http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INFO. 148.html>). The compromise made by the Society is far more noteworthy. The Society agreed, regarding blood transfusions, that 鈥渕embers should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association鈥?(Ibid.; emphases added).
A press release distributed in 1997 by the Commission clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society鈥檚 stated position:
* In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah鈥檚 Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to 鈥榩ublic health鈥?(Press Communiqu茅 Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, <>;http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E... emphasis added).
This concession seems to be a remarkable reversal of Watchtower doctrine, raising the question: will Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses now be allowed to receive blood transfusions, or was the Society disingenuous in its agreement?
The Watchtower Society鈥檚 Press Release
A definite clue can be found in a press release distributed by the Society on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: 鈥淭he agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives鈥?(copy on file). This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.
The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: 鈥淭he terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses鈥?(copy on file).
The position of the Watchtower Society is clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society has no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or 鈥渆xcommunication or disfellowshipping鈥?(Watchtower, January 15, 1961, p. 64).
. The rationale seems to be that hemophiliacs are only using a small amount of the blood component at one time, whereas an accident victim requires a large quantity of Factor VIII to increase clotting.
This inconsistency underlines the Society鈥檚 deficient understanding of the importance of all blood components. The Society鈥檚 claim that they allow the use of only 鈥渕inor鈥?blood components is unfounded; large quantities of blood are needed to extract these 鈥渕inor鈥?components. In reality, all blood components are 鈥渕ajor鈥?because they are vital physical elements.
What is the Biblical Position on Blood Transfusions?
As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood (Genesis 9:4), as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council (Leviticus 17:11鈥?4; Acts 15:28鈥?9).
These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of 鈥渂east or fowl鈥?is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites (Leviticus 3:17).
Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid.
The Society鈥檚 broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine. Many people have endured untold suffering and death because the Watchtower Society does not 鈥渁bound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that [they] may approve things that are excellent鈥?(Philippians 1:9鈥?0). The Bible's stand is very clear that Christians are to "abstain......from blood" (Acts 15:29). If a person is a member of a religious organization that abides fully by the scriptures, they would NOT accept a blood transfusion under any circumstances. If they did accept one, and then, as you put it "were not sorry they had the transfusion", then that would give strong proof that such a person is unrepentant over the choice they made to go against God's law on blood, and the most likely result is they would be removed from the congregation, and no longer would be recognized as a member of that religion.
They would not be asked to leave, they would be put out of the congregation, in harmony with the directions to be followed for all unrepentant wrongdoers found in the Bible at 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.
- As a Jehovah's Witness, my choice for the "right to live" would be choosing to obey God's law on blood, which is that we are to abstain from it. A blood transfusion is never a "right to live" choice, and it's certainly never a guarantee of life. Only ignorant, uneducated individuals would feel otherwise. True Christians would put God's law above all things, including the ignorant view of others who feel a blood transfusion is necessary.
- That's your problem, Tara. You fail to understand that it's not an assumption of what God wants or who he approves of.......because the Bible tells us exactly that much. Obedience to the God's law is the best we can do. If the Bible says to "abstain" from it (or anything else), the best we can do is just that.
- JWs cannot take a blood transfusion, this doesn't matter if they live in the U.S., Africa, Bulgaria, or anywhere else. I see no time was wasted in bringing up false statements that the other anti-JW culties keep propogating. A person would definitely be sorry for living if they chose to violate God's law in order to live a few years now, only to lose out on eternal life later on when they're judged for that choice.
-Noaim, you can call them "facts" all you like......it doesn't mean that they are. It IS nothing but anti-JW cult propaganda. I consider ANYTHING coming from you and your anti-JW cult buddies to be pure crap. You truly are the bizarre one, not me. You spew hatred and lies and then have the audacity to think that just because you call something "fact" that it somehow is.....when it's far from it. What's even more sad is that people like you are finding their way in here. Good thing you don't know what a Christian is, let alone have any place to say what is a true one and a false one.
- Honey, considering you've already stated you're not a Christian.....what you just said makes absolutely ZERO sense. Try again, little lady. It wasn't on the news. There's no need to investigate. Our stand on blood hasn't changed......not in the U.S., not in Africa, not in Europe.....nowhere has it changed. If a JW you would be disfellowshipped for choosing the right to live.
How nice eh?
And they call themselves TRue Christians..lol
Tobias: If I could choose ur right to live I would hesitate, can u tell me why Bulgarian JWs can have a transfusion?
How/why would/could a person be sorry for living?
Tobias: The FACTS about JWs in Bulgaria is not anti JW cult propoganda.
Are you saying that is not true? That never happened?
Do you consider everything that is not governed or sactioned by the WTTS to be false claims?
My God, you lot are soooo bizarre. Even faced with facts you lie, deny, avoid, oppose its authenticity etc...
It saddens me that there are people like you out there.
You almost make me want to become a Christian, a true one of course!
Tobias: Im closer to a true christian than you will ever be..
Why do you not believe anything other than the WT? Even if its on the news do you not believe it? As this was.
Tobias: Why dont you investigate for yourself then? Or are you not permitted to? |
