Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got this question a few pages back. Here is the answer as I stated it then:
< No, Jehovah's Witnesses do no accept blood transfusions but that does not mean we do not accept medical care or that we do not see doctors. Because the scriptures make it clear that God views blood as precious and the ingesting of it was prohibited (Acts 15:28,29), we simply do not believe we should take blood into our body in any form. As you know, blood transfusions are actually an antiquated form of medical treatment and doctors have been trying to eliminate the need for them for years. Since we don't accept blood transfusions, we actually demand a HIGHER quality of medical care than most patients and our stand is one of the primary reasons that 'bloodless surgery centers' and 'non-blood substitutes' are gaining in popularity and number all over the world. New ones are constantly being developed as well as new treatments that prevent the need for tranfusing at all. Doctors are grateful for this since the use of blood and its many risks have been the cause of controversy for many years.>
maybe u have already answered this, if so forgive me, but what about birth, I used to work for a man who was JW, extremely nice guy, and they used a mid-wife and would not go to the hospital, is that a normal thing, or maybe just a personal preference? It seemed he said something about it being part of his religion?
I'll 'let it lie' as you said, but you realize this stance means that if all America were JWs, we'd also all be Japanese or German, right? There'd be no America. Maybe you are OK with that and you can find a way to justify that with scripture, but I can't, and I don't think someone going to war to defend YOUR country is somehow disobeying God in doing so.
Jehovah's Witnesses know no nationalistic boundaries. We have brothers and sisters all over the world in every nation. And we are politically neutral, like Jesus. So the threat of some other nation taking over our home country does not frighten us. After all, 'God is not partial' so we try our best to live by that principle as well. And we know that whatever ills we face in this system of things will be more than rectified in the next.
maybe u have already answered this, if so forgive me, but what about birth, I used to work for a man who was JW, extremely nice guy, and they used a mid-wife and would not go to the hospital, is that a normal thing, or maybe just a personal preference? It seemed he said something about it being part of his religion?
No, that was his own personal decision. I am pregnant with my third child right now and planning to deliver at the hospital just as I did with my other two. I would LOVE to have a home birth, myself but unfortunately we live out in the 'boonies' so I'm not going to. But I've got lots of friends who have done it as well as lots of friends who have delivered at medical centers w/ heavy medication...heh heh.
I got this question a few pages back. Here is the answer as I stated it then:
< Because the scriptures make it clear that God views blood as precious and the ingesting of it was prohibited (Acts 15:28,29), we simply do not believe we should take blood into our body in any form.
Sorry for the repeat I did skim but I missed it. Can you elaborate a little though. Transfusions are not ingesting blood so I'm not sure how that applies. Blood is precious, blood is life. So in order to save a life occaisionally giving blood is required...so wouldn't that be with in the teachings of God and not against it? I do agree that bloodless surgery and transfusion alternatives are good choices, but at times there is no other choice medically speaking. So would a Jehovah Witness rather die than receive blood? I would think that would go against the "avoid these things and you shall have good health" part of that scripture. Any thoughts?
Sorry for the repeat I did skim but I missed it. Can you elaborate a little though. Transfusions are not ingesting blood so I'm not sure how that applies. Blood is precious, blood is life. So in order to save a life occaisionally giving blood is required...so wouldn't that be with in the teachings of God and not against it? I do agree that bloodless surgery and transfusion alternatives are good choices, but at times there is no other choice medically speaking. So would a Jehovah Witness rather die than receive blood? I would think that would go against the "avoid these things and you shall have good health" part of that scripture. Any thoughts?
I appreciate your thoughts but we feel that since blood transfusions were not developed in bible times, the ingesting of blood by eating it was the only matter addressed. However, the scripture does say to 'abstain from blood' so we have to consider whether injecting it into our veins would qualify as such. If an alcoholic, for instance, was told that due to his condition he must 'abstain from alcohol', would the doctors suggest that he inject it into his veins?
We would rather die than do anything that goes against God's law. But I don't know of one case, personally, where a Jehovah's Witness has died because of not receiving a blood transfusion. The reason for this is that blood is actually NEVER the only alternative. Modern medicine has made leaps and bounds in this area and there are literally dozens of options opened to patients now. The 'good health' part of the scripture shows us that the ingesting of blood through the mouth and (as medical journals show) into the veins hold health risks. In cases of 'traumatic brain injury' , which is the leading cause leading to blood transfusing, blood has been shown to do more harm than good and in many cases, doesnt even save the life of the person it has been given to. However, due to new technologies, Witnesses have not only survived traumatic brain injury due to accidents but also entire organ transplants and major surgeries with no blood administered.
We make it an important part of our bible education to also educate ourselves as to these new procedures so that we know what our options are.
I appreciate your thoughts but we feel that since blood transfusions were not developed in bible times, the ingesting of blood by eating it was the only matter addressed. However, the scripture does say to 'abstain from blood' so we have to consider whether injecting it into our veins would qualify as such. If an alcoholic, for instance, was told that due to his condition he must 'abstain from alcohol', would the doctors suggest that he inject it into his veins?
We would rather die than do anything that goes against God's law. But I don't know of one case, personally, where a Jehovah's Witness has died because of not receiving a blood transfusion. The reason for this is that blood is actually NEVER the only alternative. Modern medicine has made leaps and bounds in this area and there are literally dozens of options opened to patients now. The 'good health' part of the scripture shows us that the ingesting of blood through the mouth and (as medical journals show) into the veins hold health risks. In cases of 'traumatic brain injury' , which is the leading cause leading to blood transfusing, blood has been shown to do more harm than good and in many cases, doesnt even save the life of the person it has been given to. However, due to new technologies, Witnesses have not only survived traumatic brain injury due to accidents but also entire organ transplants and major surgeries with no blood administered.
We make it an important part of our bible education to also educate ourselves as to these new procedures so that we know what our options are.
So receiving an organ (which would contain blood cells even if drained) is ok? Here's one article, I'm sure I could find others: Halifax, The Daily News: News | Death of Jehovah's Witness brother prompts pro-transfusion petition But I have to disagree that there are very few cases that would require blood to save a life. When the body is losing blood at a rate that is uncontrolled if that blood is not replaced while repair is made to the body the body will cease functioning. Medically there is not always and alternative to blood, especially in traumatic situations. But thank you for explaining the JW point of view on this, it is very interesting.
So receiving an organ (which would contain blood) is ok? Here's one article, I'm sure I could find others: Halifax, The Daily News: News | Death of Jehovah's Witness brother prompts pro-transfusion petition But I have to disagree that there are very few cases that would require blood to save a life. When the body is losing blood at a rate that is uncontrolled if that blood is not replaced while repair is made to the body the body will cease functioning. Medically there is not always and alternative to blood, especially in traumatic situations. But thank you for explaining the JW point of view on this, it is very interesting.
Actually, organs are free of blood when they are transferred to the patient. In most cases they are anyway. I guess it depends on the organ. Anyway, the patient will take this into consideration before making a decision. There are no 'rules' that state 'this is okay but that is not'. We abide by the scriptures and where something is not clearly a violation of God's laws, then we decide based on our own conscience.
Oh you'll find lots of articles that say a witness died because they didnt receive blood. The reason I said 'personally' though is that the media alters things in order to provide what they feel to be 'newsworthy'. It's not 'newsworthy' to report when someone dies in spite of a forced blood tranfusion for instance, which happens quite often. There are at least four cases that I know of where a newspaper or tv report claimed that a JW's decision not to take blood cost them their life but when the actual facts became known to us by the families, the patient died of something else entirely-not because they didnt receive blood. It's very sad.
Because the health of my family is very important to me, I have researched this matter at length. There is actually NEVER a case where blood loss makes it necessary to transfuse whole blood as opposed to substitutes. Even in cases where vast ammounts of blood are being lost, nonblood substitutes are just as effective in re-establishing blood volume. One of the doctors in the Bloodless Surgery Center in Nashville told me that if a doctor tells you whole blood is the only option, don't believe them. It's simply the easiest method for stressed out physicians and therefore always going to be pushed, unfortunately.
We would rather die than do anything that goes against God's law. But I don't know of one case, personally, where a Jehovah's Witness has died because of not receiving a blood transfusion.
I had a good friend back in California and her dad nearly died because they were JW's and he refused blood. I forget what was wrong with him but he kept having to get surgeries and each time he barely pulled through because of his refusal to take blood. I loved Erika (my friend) to death but in her case her family refused blood and wouldn't drink alcohol, but yet they smoked cigarettes and marijuana. I asked her why they would smoke yet endanger their lives by refusing blood? I never could get a good answer on it.
So no I guess I don't technically know a JW who has died from refusing blood, but I do know someone who came close repeatedly!
Actually, organs are free of blood when they are transferred to the patient. In most cases they are anyway. I guess it depends on the organ. Anyway, the patient will take this into consideration before making a decision. There are no 'rules' that state 'this is okay but that is not'. We abide by the scriptures and where something is not clearly a violation of God's laws, then we decide based on our own conscience.
Oh you'll find lots of articles that say a witness died because they didnt receive blood. The reason I said 'personally' though is that the media alters things in order to provide what they feel to be 'newsworthy'. It's not 'newsworthy' to report when someone dies in spite of a forced blood tranfusion for instance, which happens quite often. There are at least four cases that I know of where a newspaper or tv report claimed that a JW's decision not to take blood cost them their life but when the actual facts became known to us by the families, the patient died of something else entirely-not because they didnt receive blood. It's very sad.
Because the health of my family is very important to me, I have researched this matter at length. There is actually NEVER a case where blood loss makes it necessary to transfuse whole blood as opposed to substitutes. Even in cases where vast ammounts of blood are being lost, nonblood substitutes are just as effective in re-establishing blood volume. One of the doctors in the Bloodless Surgery Center in Nashville told me that if a doctor tells you whole blood is the only option, don't believe them. It's simply the easiest method for stressed out physicians and therefore always going to be pushed, unfortunately.
Well if you could point out some of your research on how there is never a case that blood would be needed I would really be interested in reading that. If you are referring to options such as packed red blood cells or plasma being used then I can understand where you are coming from but if not then I would really be interested in seeing the research. Thanks!
I had a good friend back in California and her dad nearly died because they were JW's and he refused blood. I forget what was wrong with him but he kept having to get surgeries and each time he barely pulled through because of his refusal to take blood. I loved Erika (my friend) to death but in her case her family refused blood and wouldn't drink alcohol, but yet they smoked cigarettes and marijuana. I asked her why they would smoke yet endanger their lives by refusing blood? I never could get a good answer on it.
So no I guess I don't technically know a JW who has died from refusing blood, but I do know someone who came close repeatedly!
Well, they weren't a Jehovah's Witness if they smoked cigarettes and used marijuana. We do believe it's okay to drink alcohol in moderation (like in the bible) but no Witness smokes or takes recreational drugs. They can claim to be all that they want but they just aren't. My uncle, for instance, claimed to be a Witness all his life but he was never baptized as one and therefore simply was 'associated with' the Witnesses which is not the same thing.
Last edited by alicenevada; 06-21-2007 at 01:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's one article, I'm sure I could find others: 
