Jehova's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Akrasia

There have been two high profile cases in the media this week regarding Jehovas witnesses refusing blood transfusions.

This morning a woman lost a court case claiming she was assaulted when a hospital gave her a transfusion against her will (the hospital claimed she was in no fit state to make that judgement)

The other case involves a pregnant woman fighting to prevent blood transfusions to be given to her as yet unborn child.

For me, these two cases are very different.
The first is to me a clear case of religious freedom. The woman should have had her wishes respected and should have had the right to refuse that medical treatment.
(for the purposes of this debate, I'm ignoring the legal sticky issues regarding liability to the doctors if she had died and if there was a dispute about her 'compos mentis')


Regarding the second issue, A mother refusing life saving medical treatment for her child because of her own private religious beliefs. This is an entirely different situation. The Baby or young child is not a Jehovas witness, he/she is a child. The mother has no right to harm or kill a child on the basis of her own private religious belief.

It is essentially the same thing as female genital mutilation, or even human sacrifice.

seamus

Akrasia wrote: »

For me, these two cases are very different.

Actually, I don't think they're all that different. Just a little extra info on the first case for the purposes of the discussion; the woman was after giving birth to a healthy child and was at risk of death without a transfusion. To the best of the doctors' knowledge, the child had no next of kin to take care of it in this country, and so in the best interests of the child, they decided to go ahead and give the mother the transfusion.

AngryBadger

Akrasia wrote: »

(for the purposes of this debate, I'm ignoring the legal sticky issues regarding liability to the doctors if she had died and if there was a dispute about her 'compos mentis')

Which of course makes your whole detabte redundant. the problem with these unilateral kinds of beliefs is they make no allowance whatsoever for the impact on people who don't share those beliefs but are unavoidably tied to these scenarios.

The doctors WOULD have been liable if the woman in the first case had died. Her child would also have to be raised without a mother. Her death would have visited hardship and misery on her family. In the second case the woman involved was willoing to let BOTH her children die because of her beliefs. Where's the gain in that? Two completely innocent lvies lost, untold gried visited upon her family, and for what?

Give me an argument which in some way justifies these points (and other similar points), without introducing ridiculous cavetas and I'll listen.

EDIT: My bad, completely misread the last part of that post, apologies OP

seamus

AngryBadger wrote: »

And honestly, how offensive is it to the medical staff who treated these women to have you compare their heroic efforts to genital mutilation and human sacrifice?

I think he was trying to say that refusing blood transfusions to children was as barbaric as forcing them to undergo genital mutilation.

I could be wrong though.

nhughes100

I haven't read the bible, old or new testament so could someone point out to me the chapter/verse where it tells JV's not to have blood transfusions please? I remember listening to an interview with one of the leading JV's in Ireland once and he was asked the exact same question but dodged the answer. As far as I know blood transfusions were not commonplace when the bible was written.

If there are alternatives to using blood then one wonders why we aren't using them for everyone. Every blood transfusion service in the world are constantly crying out for donors????

As I said I ain't much of a bible reader but I do remember something going a little like- thou shalt not kill. To put your religion ahead of your unborn children is plain wrong.

Zombrex

AngryBadger wrote: »

And honestly, how offensive is it to the medical staff who treated these women to have you compare their heroic efforts to genital mutilation and human sacrifice?

I think you need to read his post again.

He is saying that indirectly harming your children through the act of refusal to allow necessary medical treatment is similar to directly harming your children through genital mutilation or human sacrifice.

JimiTime

nhughes100 wrote: »

I haven't read the bible, old or new testament so could someone point out to me the chapter/verse where it tells JV's not to have blood transfusions please? I remember listening to an interview with one of the leading JV's in Ireland once and he was asked the exact same question but dodged the answer. As far as I know blood transfusions were not commonplace when the bible was written.

If there are alternatives to using blood then one wonders why we aren't using them for everyone. Every blood transfusion service in the world are constantly crying out for donors????

As I said I ain't much of a bible reader but I do remember something going a little like- thou shalt not kill. To put your religion ahead of your unborn children is plain wrong.

Its a scripture in Leviticus that is restated in the book of James. Its about the ritual of animal slaughter. The Hebrews were told to spill out its 'life' blood, as a symbol of life belonging to God. This is the cutting of the neck method. Its blood was not to be used, just spilled out. James reiterated this in the NT, baring in mind he is referencing the law about the slaughter and ingesting of animals. He said to paraphrase: 'keep abstaining from blood and things strangled'.

A note on this, even though its clear that what is being referenced is the eating of animals slaughtered in an improper fashion, JW's will still eat in Restaurants, McDonalds etc, without asking if the meat has been through this process. They'll also take tetnis shots (made from horses blood syrum) and a host of other blood products. However, a blood transfusion to save someone. Oh no! The people inside the institution are completely brainwashed by them, I know many. This is something that defines them. Something they can hold up and say, 'See we'd die rather than disobey you God'. As I mentioned though, the horrid Irony, is that while they argue about the interpretation of the scripture in question, they indulge in the eating of animals which have not been slaughtered the proper way. Something which is not open to interpretation. Sad really, but I've seen smart people get completely absorbed in them.:(:mad:

Incidentally, they also told their members they couldn't have beards a few years back Alledgedly, in some cultures, beards were offensive, and they obviously thought Ireland was one of them:eek::o:confused: I remember asking one, and they said it was because alot of republicans had them, like Gerry Adams. And wait for it.....The Dubliners. 'I'll shave it when Ireland is free' is how the old sayin went. Showed me just how much control they had on their adhearents though.

Zombrex

McDonalds strangles its cows?

Zombrex

JW interepret passages such as Lev 17 as implying that blood is life and not to be used for anything including "eating", which they consider blood transfusions to be.

Lev 17
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.
12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

This law is one of the few Old Testament laws that is repeated as being important for gentiles to follow when the Council of Jerusalem was drawing up what gentiles should have to do.

Acts 15
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

No food sacrificed to idols
No blood
No meat of strangled animals
No sexual immorality.

These were the things from the Old Testament that were considered important enough that even Gentiles looking to be saved should still follow.

So while JimiTime may disagree, it is slightly inaccurate to state that the JW position is totally foreign to the Bible's teaching. Obviously blood transfusions were not something the Bible authors had to deal with, but I doubt few would argue that the Bible authors believed that drinking or eating blood as a good idea.

Other Christians my place different emphasis on different passages (I think posters such as PDN have stated that the ruling of the council of Jerusalem was only a short term thing, not meant to carry on for ever), but the JWs aren't just making all this stuff up.

Dellboy2007

How in god's name is Coca-Cola and Tomatoes going to help you when you lose 80% of your blood?

Mark Hamill

This kind of thing always reminds me of a joke I once heard:

It was flooding in California. As the flood waters were rising, a man was on the roof of his house and another man in a row boat came by. The man in the row boat told the man on the stoop to get in and he'd save him. The man on the stoop said, no, he had faith in God and would wait for God to save him. The flood waters kept rising and the man had to go to the second floor of his house. A man in a motor boat came by and told the man in the house to get in because he had come to rescue him. The man in the house said no thank you. He had perfect faith in God and would wait for God to save him. The flood waters kept rising. Pretty soon they were up to the man's roof and he got out on the roof. A helicopter then came by, lowered a rope and the pilot shouted down in the man in the house to climb up the rope because the helicopeter had come to rescue him. The man in the house wouldn't get in. He told the pilot that he had faith in God and would wait for God to rescue him. The flood waters kept rising and the man in the house drowned. When he got to heaven, he asked God where he went wrong. He told God that he had perfect faith in God, but God had let him drown.
"I sent you two boats and a helicopter." asked God. "What more do you want from me?"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

So while JimiTime may disagree, it is slightly inaccurate to state that the JW position is totally foreign to the Bible's teaching. Obviously blood transfusions were not something the Bible authors had to deal with, but I doubt few would argue that the Bible authors believed that drinking or eating blood as a good idea.

the JWs aren't just making all this stuff up.

Thanks for clearing up that point you invented for me! I never said it was 'just made up'. i said what it was based on, and pointed out the hypocricy. The bible does point to blood as sacred, and the scripture in question can be debated to its modern context. however, the animal side of things can't. Its plain. But JW's don't really bother with it. They'd rather use the headline grabbing method of people dying for their beliefs! In this process, their adhearents go along with it. i'm not entering into discussion, just don't misrepresent me!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks for clearing up that point you invented for me! I never said it was 'just made up'.

You said the organisation brainwashed its followers. Does that not imply the same thing? They would hardly be brainwashing them if this was actually what the Bible teaches, would they?

Anyway, apologies if I misunderstood.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You said the organisation brainwashed its followers. Does that not imply the same thing?

Certainly not. In fact, I think there is a case to be made for it. However, its down to the individuals discretion. What the JW's have done, is made it one of their biggest identifying marks. Giving its followers Cards (like doner cards, except saying they don't want blood). yet in the midst of all this, they'll happily indulge in eating meat that they know not the origin. Personally, i have no issue with someone feeling that this command extends to blood transfusions. What i have issue with, is exploiting people who you've brainwashed into believing its such a heinous act. All the while, eating bloody burgers that you don't know the origin of! They, through their literature use this to sell the notion that they are being persecuted. In doing this, create this 'Hero' status for all those who refused it and died. Dedicating publications to the martyrs etc.

They would hardly be brainwashing them if this was actually what the Bible teaches, would they?

See above.

nhughes100

Yet Jesus expects us to drink his blood with communion every time you go to mass. Sounds like brainwashing stuff to me allright. Could someone explain what exactly JV's believe? Like what makes them different from a catholic etc? I'm just curious but not really into religion. I had heard of Mormons but only understood the whole Joseph Smith thing thanks to South Park, unfortunately they haven't done an episode on JV's yet. I'm sure the two get confused seeing as they like calling around to people' houses uninvited.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Personally, i have no issue with someone feeling that this command extends to blood transfusions. What i have issue with, is exploiting people who you've brainwashed into believing its such a heinous act. All the while, eating bloody burgers that you don't know the origin of!

Ok, fair enough.

Do you have any reason to think that they do actually do that (regularly eat meat that has been strangled or not bleed properly)?

Any search on the magical internet about JWs and food say that JW excerise extreme caution about eating processed meat, and some don't eat meat at all.

Zombrex

nhughes100 wrote: »

Yet Jesus expects us to drink his blood with communion every time you go to mass..

That is kinda the point. "Blood" contains life, according to Jewish tradition.

nhughes100

So you can drink the blood of God just not an human supposedly made in God's image?

Zombrex

nhughes100 wrote: »

So you can drink the blood of God just not an human supposedly made in God's image?

Yes. Blood is life and God is in charge of life.

That's the logic anyways.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, fair enough.

Do you have any reason to think that they do actually do that (regularly eat meat that has been strangled or not bleed properly)?

There is very little emphasis put on meat products. If its obviously blood, like black pudding, they'll avoid. Also, they don't mind using certain products from blood, such as vacinations (tetnis) etc. They believe that its only a part of the blood. They actually have a table as far as I recall, of the components of the blood one can use, and the ones you can't use. Once you get into that, the principle falls. Its either sacred, and must not be harvested, or its flexible and down to circumstance.

Any search on the magical internet about JWs and food say that JW excerise extreme caution about eating processed meat, and some don't eat meat at all.

Eating meat has never been an issue to any I know. I'm sure there are some that don't eat it, but thats not doctrine or anything. As i mentioned, if it says Blood! on the pack, most will avoid it, but they don't really have a hang up about it.

PDN

nhughes100 wrote: »

Yet Jesus expects us to drink his blood with communion every time you go to mass. Sounds like brainwashing stuff to me allright. Could someone explain what exactly JV's believe? Like what makes them different from a catholic etc? I'm just curious but not really into religion. I had heard of Mormons but only understood the whole Joseph Smith thing thanks to South Park, unfortunately they haven't done an episode on JV's yet. I'm sure the two get confused seeing as they like calling around to people' houses uninvited.

While I am not a JW, and while I think their beliefs are whacko, to be fair to them they do not believe that they drink blood at communion. In fact, if I understand their beliefs and practices correctly, most JWs are not allowed to partake of communion or mass at all.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

JW interepret passages such as Lev 17 as implying that blood is life and not to be used for anything including "eating", which they consider blood transfusions to be.

It comes down to interpretation. Beats me how anyone could possibly equate a blood transfusion with 'eating' blood...
There was a JW on Morning Ireland this a.m. talking about the non blood alternative. I was half listening, but as far as I could make out he was saying this stuff works(whatever it is...). If this is a possibility and saves lives, then why not use it. I gather though there's some reason this alternative isn't being used.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

It comes down to interpretation. Beats me how anyone could possibly equate a blood transfusion with 'eating' blood...

Well where do you think the food you eat ends up?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well where do you think the food you eat ends up?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Well no, not exactly. That is where all the food you don't absorb ends up. The food you do absorb ends up in your blood.

Fanny Cradock

That is a mightily disturbing picture

JimiTime

This conversation I think shows that there is not a definitive answer. Again, can I also emphasis that the doctrine of the JW's does allow for the harvesting of blood, as they can use certain blood products. As i said, its something they can use to define themselves. To show their dedication, and also to show how the world persecutes them. Which for a religion that claims itself as the only road to God, is essential. However, their persecution is no different from any religious group. However, creating this myth that the world is persecuting them, makes them feel they are 'not part of this world'.

I'd like to stress though, that rather than thinking that their beliefs are 'whacko' as PDN put it, I think they rather exert more control on their followers. There doctrines are not too far removed from the rest of Christendom. Someone compared them with Mormonism, well apart from knocking on doors, they are not close to this group. I had family members who joined them years ago. Finally got out a while back. So I know alot of them, and alot of their teachings.

As for the alternatives to blood, see the link below:



http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_Alternatives_To_Blood_Transfusion.asp?sitearea=ETO

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

Wow! I'd have serious problems cleaning that loo-it'd cost me a fortune on toothpaste

PoleStar

JimiTime wrote: »

This conversation I think shows that there is not a definitive answer. Again, can I also emphasis that the doctrine of the JW's does allow for the harvesting of blood, as they can use certain blood products. As i said, its something they can use to define themselves. To show their dedication, and also to show how the world persecutes them. Which for a religion that claims itself as the only road to God, is essential. However, their persecution is no different from any religious group. However, creating this myth that the world is persecuting them, makes them feel they are 'not part of this world'.

I'd like to stress though, that rather than thinking that their beliefs are 'whacko' as PDN put it, I think they rather exert more control on their followers. There doctrines are not too far removed from the rest of Christendom. Someone compared them with Mormonism, well apart from knocking on doors, they are not close to this group. I had family members who joined them years ago. Finally got out a while back. So I know alot of them, and alot of their teachings.

As for the alternatives to blood, see the link below:



http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_Alternatives_To_Blood_Transfusion.asp?sitearea=ETO

There SHOULD be a definitive answer. With regards to adults, no one would ever deny an individual the right to refuse treatment if they are of sound mind and most of us would agree with this that if an individual wishes to choose a course of action with regards to medical treatment due to their own personal beliefs, well thats their choice and if they die or whatever, that was the path they chose FOR THEMSELVES.

Now consider this imaginary scenario. I personally am a Jehovas Witness. My relative of over 18 years of age, who is not of sound mind for whatever reason, is in hospital and needs an emergency life saving transfusion, otherwise it is clear he will die. Now as a Jehovas Witness, I object at the hospital as his next of kin due to my personal beliefs. In this case, as the individual concerned is not able to make a decision for himself, the medical staff act in an emergency in the best interests of the patient. This is the way it is because no individual has the legal authority to consent or deny consent on behalf of someone else. No one else that is except a judge in a court. Most people would recognise that this is the most ethical and logical way to run society. Bottom line, I can not make decisions on behalf of another individual. The court wouldnt hesitate for a second in this.

Now lets change a few minor details in the above scenario. The relative is 2 weeks of age, and is also my son. Now all of a sudden, the individual seems to lose their own autonomous rights, and becomes my personal property. Now I am able to make decisions for them which might lead to that persons death. Now the court isnt so sure. Now society is divided, some say yes the parents should be able to make decisions which might lead to the childs death. Others say no. And yet the irony is that if the child lives to the age of 18, then no one else can decide for them.

This is the great irony of human rights. Children do not in general have the same human rights as adults. This is wrong.

The only decision that should be made for this child is the right one. Remember, this child is not a Jehovas Witness, its just a child with parents who are Jehovas Witnesses.

JimiTime

PoleStar wrote: »

There SHOULD be a definitive answer. With regards to adults, no one would ever deny an individual the right to refuse treatment if they are of sound mind and most of us would agree with this that if an individual wishes to choose a course of action with regards to medical treatment due to their own personal beliefs, well thats their choice and if they die or whatever, that was the path they chose FOR THEMSELVES.

Now consider this imaginary scenario. I personally am a Jehovas Witness. My relative of over 18 years of age, who is not of sound mind for whatever reason, is in hospital and needs an emergency life saving transfusion, otherwise it is clear he will die. Now as a Jehovas Witness, I object at the hospital as his next of kin due to my personal beliefs. In this case, as the individual concerned is not able to make a decision for himself, the medical staff act in an emergency in the best interests of the patient. This is the way it is because no individual has the legal authority to consent or deny consent on behalf of someone else. No one else that is except a judge in a court. Most people would recognise that this is the most ethical and logical way to run society. Bottom line, I can not make decisions on behalf of another individual. The court wouldnt hesitate for a second in this.

Now lets change a few minor details in the above scenario. The relative is 2 weeks of age, and is also my son. Now all of a sudden, the individual seems to lose their own autonomous rights, and becomes my personal property. Now I am able to make decisions for them which might lead to that persons death. Now the court isnt so sure. Now society is divided, some say yes the parents should be able to make decisions which might lead to the childs death. Others say no. And yet the irony is that if the child lives to the age of 18, then no one else can decide for them.

This is the great irony of human rights. Children do not in general have the same human rights as adults. This is wrong.

The only decision that should be made for this child is the right one. Remember, this child is not a Jehovas Witness, its just a child with parents who are Jehovas Witnesses.

If the law says that the child gets treatment, then it gets treatment. I'm assuming you're anti-abortion also?