Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Claude_Kenneson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Claude_Kenneson

Guest
Jehovah’s Witnesses have been in the news a lot lately in Canada, relative to the parents of sextuplets denying blood transfusions to their premature born babies on religious grounds. The State stepped in and ordered transfusions in spite of the parents objections.

Here is my take on the matter. Jehovah’s Witnesses point out that in the Old Testament blood is the life of the living being (Gen. 9:4; Dt. 12:2). Since life is given by Jehovah, they tell us, and is under His dominion, the eating of blood is prohibited. (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:10) However, Witnesses should note that nowhere in the Old Testament is the use of blood completely forbidden or taboo. Nor was it always poured on the ground per Lev. 17:13 In the sacrificial rituals, the blood representing life was symbolically offered to God on the altar (Lev. 1:5) or sprinkled before the sanctuary (Lev. 4:6) or poured at the base of the altar (Lev. 4:7) or smeared on the horns of the altar (Lev. 4:25). In covenant rituals the blood was splashed on the altar and sprinkled on the people (Ex. 24:6-8). Also, don’t forget that Jehovah turned the waters of Egypt into blood, according to Ex. 7:19-20. Strange if Jehovah had such a complete abhorrence to blood that he should use this substance as a plague. The blood of the Passover lamb was smeared on the doorposts to protect the Israelites from the angel of death in Egypt (Ex. 12:7,13).
Now when we arrive at the New Testament in Acts 15:29, we can certainly determine that it could not be condemning a medical practice which did not yet exist at that time. This is certainly not what the writer had in mind. The context shows that a problem had arisen as to what Jewish ptractices Gentile converts were to observe. It is the dietary and sex laws, mainly of Lev. 17 and 18, which are to be kept as verse 21 clearly indicates. To claim that “to abstain from blood” must be extended to include blood transfusions is certainly stretching the point. When a person gets into an accident and is lying in the hospital, and is hungry, he is not given blood as nutrition. Blood is only used to replace lost blood needed to carry oxygen. It is not used as food, nor is blood digested. If the council of Jerusalem were to be held today, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot say with certainty that it would forbid blood transfusions. It never addressed that issue.
Any further thoughts or points?
 
JWs also believe that it shows a lack of respect for the sanctity of blood to use it in transfusions.

This seems to me an unnecessary attitude.
Now, gorging on blood as common food might be construed as disrespect for the sanctity of blood, but using blood to save the life of another human being is not showing lack of respect for blood but rather showing it the greatest respect, using it to save the life of another human being made in the image of God.
People are not killed so that their blood can be obtained for transusions, only a small amount (a pint) is taken per visit, and the body quickly replaces it. Saving the life of another human being is an act of mercy and God would certainly not condemn an act of mercy. It is the greatest kindness possible to share some of your own blood with another person who needs it to save his or her life from a tragic and premature death.

More over, the Jerusalem Council described in the book of Acts was, as the first poster noted, not condemning a lifesaving medical practice, a modern phenomenon really, which they had no way of understanding. The council was concerned with which practices of the Mosaic Law should Christians observe so as not to scandalize the Jews. They decided that Christians should avoid among other things, eating the meat of strangled animals, eating blood, and avoiding “porneia” which in this case, all scholars agree, does not mean fornication in the broader sense (which was always a big no-no for Christians even BEFORE the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15) but unlawful marriages of close relatives such as first cousins. This was a DISCIPLINARY ruling, not a DOCTRINAL ruling, and could change if circumstances warranted. The ruling was adopted “because the Law of Moses” was so well known and regarded in the cities where the Christian congregations were being established.

The JW teaching is the private interpretation of a group of self-appointed men who have no authority from God whatsoever to pronounce with finality on the meaning of scripture and which, sadly, has led to the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of innocent Jehovah’s Witnesses including little children with their whole lives ahead of them. Claiming to be the mouthpiece of God to mankind is not a role to be taken on oneself and God will judge very harshly those men, of whatever sect, who self-proclaim themselves to be God’s Sole Channel of Communication to Mankind Today. Such people are REALLY playing with fire.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
theage.com.au/news/national/are-transfusions-the-holy-grail-dont-take-it-as-read/2007/06/02/1180205580405.html

The above URL is for an article about a cardiovascular surgeon who thinks all patients shoudl be treated like JW’s because the survival rate on heart surgery for nontransfused patients is higher. (other studies have shown similar results for other types of procedures that would normally involve transfusion)

This does not mean doctors are bad, but as the article brings out transfusions have become a kind of religion among medical professionals (they’re only human) to the point they have become dogma without reason.

I believe this bears out the point that the Bible is truly God’s gift to man and a reliable guide for our lives that never goes out of date.
 
I work in a hospital laboratory, mostly in microbiology, but a few days a month in the blood bank.

That article makes an incorrect statement–Blood is NOT given for FREE, at least not in the U.S!

Heavens, no!

In fact, our blood bank makes quite a bit of money for the hospital! I can’t remember how much the various blood components cost, but they sure aren’t free. Some of the tiny little components, e.g., Factor VIII, cost a fortune!

If they gave blood away for free, where they get the money to pay us blood bankers? Maybe in other countries it’s free, but not here.

I think his statistic about JWs doing better after heart surgery is interesting. It could be because JWs are generally abstainers from cigarettes, alcohol, and excess eating, so perhaps they are in better shape to begin with when they go into surgery.

I want to correct a misperception that maybe some people have about blood transfusions. They are not given lightly. Blood transfusions are given only to save life.

If it is possible for life to be saved without the transfusion, doctors don’t give the blood. It’s too precious to give away to just anyone. And the testing procedure that we have to do before a patient can receive blood is arduous. We double and triple check everything so that no one will die because of a transfusion reaction. But no one can totally guarantee the safety of a blood component. So like I said, it’s not something that’s given out lightly.
 
Cat, your post is very much appreciated! Thanks for posting this here. Maybe some JWs will see that the blood transfusions are not just a plain simple thing for “eating” it… as you stated, they are there to save lives.
 
the real reason behind JWs refusal of blood transfusions is pure blind hatred of the Catholic Church. It is a thinly veiled jab at the Real Presence.
They will allow certain blood fractions, but it has been compared to allowing someone to eat ham and eat swiss cheese and eat bread and eat mustard but not allow them to eat a ham and swiss sandwich. My faithful annointed hypocrite of a father got around his last surgery by having his own blood pumped back into himself, but 30 years ago he was willing to let me die because that proceedure was not yet invented.
Ravyn
 
Ravyn_Guiliani said:
the real reason behind JWs refusal of blood transfusions is pure blind hatred of the Catholic Church. It is a thinly veiled jab at the Real Presence.
They will allow certain blood fractions, but it has been compared to allowing someone to eat ham and eat swiss cheese and eat bread and eat mustard but not allow them to eat a ham and swiss sandwich. My faithful annointed hypocrite of a father got around his last surgery by having his own blood pumped back into himself, but 30 years ago he was willing to let me die because that proceedure was not yet invented.
Ravyn
Click to expand...
Wow:confused: that is so sad.
Didn’t they at one time in their early days accept blood transfusions then later changed it when Rutherford came in?
 
My faithful annointed hypocrite of a father got around his last surgery by having his own blood pumped back into himself, but 30 years ago he was willing to let me die because that proceedure was not yet invented.

Wow, Ravyn, that’s really interesting to hear that your dad did that. Because about 30 years ago when I was studying with the Witnesses, I asked about the possibility of using that method instead of receiving someone else’s blood, and I was told
that it was absolutely forbidden by Jehovah to have your own blood taken out and pumped back into you because, they said, once the blood comes out of you, it is to be poured out onto the ground, not pumped back into you.

Interesting that your dad, one of the “anointed,” did such a thing.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
QuietTimes said:
Wow:confused: that is so sad.
Didn’t they at one time in their early days accept blood transfusions then later changed it when Rutherford came in?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I didn’t think it became an issue until after the Korean Conflict (MASH and all that) because it was not used extensively previous to that time.
Ravyn
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
My faithful annointed hypocrite of a father got around his last surgery by having his own blood pumped back into himself, but 30 years ago he was willing to let me die because that proceedure was not yet invented.

Wow, Ravyn, that’s really interesting to hear that your dad did that. Because about 30 years ago when I was studying with the Witnesses, I asked about the possibility of using that method instead of receiving someone else’s blood, and I was told
that it was absolutely forbidden by Jehovah to have your own blood taken out and pumped back into you because, they said, once the blood comes out of you, it is to be poured out onto the ground, not pumped back into you.

Interesting that your dad, one of the “anointed,” did such a thing.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
I believe it happened in the 90’s but not sure of the date, could have been more recent.
Ravyn
 
This whole no-transfusion thing makes no sense to me.

I had a kidney transplant 2 years ago, and if I was a JW, I probably wouldn’t be here posting today.
 
Thought that the readers would be interested to know that there is a movement within Jehovah’s Witnesses called Associated Jehovah’s Witnsses for Reform on Blood. Visit their site at

ajwrb.org
 
The scripture says “Abstain from _______________”

Insert the name of any other liquid or food for the blank. Alcohol? Meat? Vegetables, Corn, Sugar, Salt, Soda Pop, etc.

If a doctor told you “Abstain from ____________”, would it be even remotely possible he didn’t want you to take that _______ and inject it into your blood stream?

Steve
 
BibleSteve said:
The scripture says “Abstain from _______________”

Insert the name of any other liquid or food for the blank. Alcohol? Meat? Vegetables, Corn, Sugar, Salt, Soda Pop, etc.

If a doctor told you “Abstain from ____________”, would it be even remotely possible he didn’t want you to take that _______ and inject it into your blood stream?

Steve
Click to expand...
NWT
Lev 3:17 “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

What is the current Society teaching about abstaining from fat?
 
dawgfan said:
NWT
Lev 3:17 “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

What is the current Society teaching about abstaining from fat?
Click to expand...
I believe the teaching is that Lev 3:17 is part of the Mosaic Law which was fulfilled by Jesus and not binding upon Christians.

However, in Acts, the question arose about necessary things required for Christians… including “Abstain from ___________”

Steve
 
Actually, Steve, you might want to read Acts 15 in context.
The council held at Jerusalem was deciding which things the Gentile converts should avoid so as not to scandalize anyone precisely because the Law of Moses was so well known and regarded. This was disciplinary ruling of the church, not a dogmatic one that would be binding on all Christians forever.
Gentile converts were to abstain from the meat of strangled animals, blood, and “porneia” which scholars generally agree was not the common sin of Fornication (which was always a no-no for Christians even before this council in Jerusalem and remains a no-no today) but porneia in the sense commonly practiced by the Gentiles of the empire, namely, unlawful marriages, unlawful due to the fact that gentiles often married people in very close degrees of blood relationship, which the Law of Moses forbade.
These concessions to the Law of Moses were done so as not to scandalize the Jewish brethren primarily. Abstaining from blood clearly meant not to use blood as common food like some gentiles did. A blood transfusion is not disrespectfully using blood as common food, but an emergency act of mercy done for the saving of a human life, and God would not object to such an act of mercy.

By the way, JWs are allowed to receive blood FRAGMENTS derived from DONATED human blood. Why then are JWs not allowed to DONATE blood themselves so that other JWs can receive the blood fragments that they ARE allowed to receive?
The Society’s rules on blood are simply not consistent, seriously.

God bless you, Steve.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
The Society’s rules on blood are simply not consistent, seriously.
Click to expand...
I am simply answering this question based on my own reading of Scripture.

When it says: “Abstain from __________________”, its not too hard for me to get the point. If God thought it important enough to put “Abstain from ______________” in the Bible, I’ll abstain from whatever is inserted into that blank.

If it said Abstain from wine, I would certainly not drink it or inject it into my veins.

It’s simply my personal decision based on what looks to be an easy to understand scripture.

Steve
 
BibleSteve said:
“Abstain from ______________” Steve
Click to expand...
you are assuming that blood used for medical proceedures like a transfusion is a FOOD? how about abstain from gasoline? or abstain from penicillin? If I inject heroin into a vein am I EATING it? In all the instances of the Bible talking about not eating blood–it is talking about NOT EATING BLOOD. wow–whowouldathunkit?
Ravyn
 
I understand, Steve, that that is your understanding of how you read those scripture verses. I only ask that you reconsider the explanation I provided above of what the Jerusalem ruling actually was, and the circumstances which provoked the ruling. It also happens to be the understanding of very many scripture scholars who have examined that ruling from all angles.

Steve, you may not realize it, but if you eat any red meat at all, you do eat blood every time you eat the red meat. A nice sized steak will result in your eating about a tablespoon of blood.
God knows that you are eating that blood and he does not forbid you from eating red meat. If you eat a 1/3 pound ground beef hamburger on a bun, you are getting just over a teaspoon of whole blood in that meat. It cannot be avoided.
The meat is bled because most people do not want to eat gobs of blood in their food and also because bleeding the meat helps keep it fresh longer. But you and I eat blood every time we eat red meat. God’s point in forbidding the Israelites to eat blood was to highlight for them the fact that blood is to be used in sacrifice, not treated deliberately as common food. But God knows that even bled meat still has whole blood in it, and he’s not going to kill you at Armageddon for eating a Whopper every now and then.

Using blood in emergencies for transfusions is not treating blood as common food nor showing disrespect for it. It is an act of mercy to donate blood so that someone horribly injured in an accident, for example, can be kept from bleeding to death.
Jesus strongly condemned the Pharisees for being SUCH “sticklers for the Law” that they even condemned acts of Mercy done on the Sabbath, when they themselves would have pulled one of their animals out of a well when it had fallen into the well on a sabbath. Jesus healed people on the sabbath, an act of work which required the exercise of power on his part, and they viciously condemned him for it. He was appalled at their hardness of heart, for mercy triumphs over justice (law).
The use of blood in emergencies is an act of mercy.
Having said that, however, I welcome the development of blood substitutes which can be used in many cases in place of whole blood because human blood, even though thoroughly tested, contains every germ that the donor has and is not 100% safe.
It’s much safer now than it ever was, but it’s not 100% safe.
Then again, no MEDICINE is “safe” either. Some medicines are safer than others, but none are really SAFE. They are drugs.
I have suffered for years from emotional disorders and have to take medications every day. They are not safe. They are the safest ones on the market for my condition, but they are not safe. They have bad side-effects. But the benefits outweigh the risks. Anyway, I’m starting to ramble now, so I’ll end this post.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
 
Ravyn_Guiliani said:
you are assuming that blood used for medical proceedures like a transfusion is a FOOD? how about abstain from gasoline? or abstain from penicillin? If I inject heroin into a vein am I EATING it? In all the instances of the Bible talking about not eating blood–it is talking about NOT EATING BLOOD. wow–whowouldathunkit?
Ravyn
Click to expand...
Actually if the Bible said “Abstain from Heroin” or “Abstain from penicillin”, or frankly "Abstain from ", I would take it’s advice as the Inspired Word of God and obey it. I wouldn’t eat it, or inject it into my veins.

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top