Ex Jehovah's Witnesses, would you now accept a blood transfusion?

Or do you still hold to the belief that you must not accept blood, regardless of the outcome.

Also why / why not?

Of course, not only that but my blood type is in high demand so I am compelled to donate.
If you need a transfusion, you are in bad shape anyway...so why not accept one.
The whole blood issue is just a publicity stunt by the JW's to show off to the rest of us how devoted and dedicated they remain, even in the face of death.
It supports their isolationist, utopian, pipe-dream theology.
Look at me, see how much I love my God.
What a crock!

i didn't get to answer this in time, but absolutely, yes. Report Abuse

The bible only speaks about animal blood and that certain blood letting procedures should be followed at slaughter. How you get to blood transfusions, human, is a mystery. To make matters more interesting, they do not practice the equivalent of kosher of halal. Another mystery as to die from refusing blood but take meat which may not have been bled properly is very strange. Or is it just me?

The govt of Bulgaria and the JW have signed agreements to allow blood transfusion to JW members in that country. Still, it is that persons' choice whether to accept or not.

Edit 1: Rodeo girl, The JW should settle down with fact that they can accept blood transfusion [e.g. their special procedures or the real blood] and thanks God about it.

Why not? They've been accepting blood in Bulgaria since 1998. They Watchtower tells the government there that the Witlessness can accept blood and won't receive any repercussions for doing so but if they DO receive it they must disassociate themselves?

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. 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.

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?
-----------------------

Talk about unity and well... unity.

EDIT: I misunderstood. Now that I am an ex-Jehovah's Witlessness, yes I would accept blood, and organs, etc.

鈥淎n Important Contribution to Medical Science鈥?br> BY AWAKE! WRITER IN MEXICO
Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses are known worldwide for choosing nonblood management of their medical conditions. Some people criticize this Bible-based stand. Yet, as recorded in the widely circulated newspaper Reforma, of Mexico City, Dr. 脕ngel Herrera, surgeon in chief at the National Institute of Oncology, said: 鈥淭he Witnesses are not fools. Neither are they fanatics. .聽.聽. [They] have made an important contribution to medical science by making the medical profession consider the need to save blood.鈥?br> Fifteen years ago, Dr.聽Herrera organized a team of anesthesiologists and surgeons to perform operations without using blood. Dr.聽Isidro Mart铆nez, an anesthesiologist on that team, commented: 鈥淎 correct anesthetic procedure allows for applying all the procedures for saving blood. So we can indeed help Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses, respecting their religious stand.鈥?br> There are more than 30 alternatives to blood transfusion, reported Reforma in October聽2006. They include cauterizing blood vessels, covering organs with a special gauze that releases chemicals that inhibit bleeding, and using blood-volume expanders.
Dr.聽Mois茅s Calder贸n, chief heart surgeon at La Raza General Hospital in Mexico City, routinely performs surgery without administering blood. He stated in Reforma: 鈥淎 transfusion is not a harmless procedure. There is the risk of transmitting viruses, bacteria, or parasites. Also, allergic reactions can develop that alter renal and pulmonary function.鈥?In view of those risks, Dr.聽Calder贸n said: 鈥淲e operate on all patients as if they were Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses. We try to have as little bleeding as possible, recover the blood that is lost, and use medicines that help the patient to bleed less.鈥?br> The newspaper quoted Acts 15:28, 29, a key scripture on which Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses base their stand. In this scripture the apostles issued the following edict: 鈥淭he 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.鈥?br> The Hospital Information Desk at the branch office of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses in Mexico reports that there are 75 Hospital Liaison Committees in that country with 950 volunteers who visit doctors to provide information on alternatives to blood. Some 2,000 doctors in Mexico are willing to treat Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses without using blood. The Witnesses greatly appreciate the cooperation of these doctors, who have also thus become better equipped to help non-Witness patients.

I would never accept a blood transfusion. Even those who are not witnesses see the disadvantages of getting a blood transfusion. More and more doctors are beginning to see the benefits of bloodless surgery and many regular people refuse to be transfused with someone else's blood.

That is an excellent question and as far as I鈥檓 concerned they should never be allowed a blood transfusion! P.s. Avre鈥?you would rather die than take a chance (with the odds in your favour)???? Do you bet? Do you drive? Do you have a gas supply to your house? Do you live in a bubble? 鈥榥uff said. I give my blood religiously to help save people, I don't enjoy it and I don't like that goodwill being rejected!

I'm not religious at all, and I would NEVER accept a blood transfusion (even if I was nearly dead) UNLESS the doctor could prove to me that there is absolutely NO contamination of any kind in it!

I agree with the Lioness. They already take them a piece at a time. Here is the ham sandwich example: http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp115...

In a hot minute.

Witnesses do have blood transfusions! It is done piece by piece.

Yes I would becaue it is not the sin the jw's make it out to be.