I couldn't find anything more recent on this than a Watchtower magazine article of 1964. But in there is states explicitly that allowing a pet to have a blood transfusion is a no-no. Here's a quote: "How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the bodys vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian." - 15 Feb 1964
Since 2000 they have allowed the acceptance of blood 'fractions' to be a conscience matter. But seeing as these are accessed via donated and store whole blood it sounds like a double standard to me.
I've had clients refuse euthanasia for their pets on the grounds that it's interfering with God's will - Muslim and Christian. I've had clients refuse euthanasia with no reference to god - just being in some sort of denial I think.
I have a lot of problem understanding why people of religious bent seem to be OK with interfering with God's will in treating disease but not when it comes to what's to my mind, the final part of the treatment. Eg it's God's will 'that this dog dies an unpleasant death from cancer but it's OK to treat it. Once the treatment is no longer working, it's not OK to euthanase the animal. I'm sure this topic must have been argued out a zillion times with refernce to people - I'd be interested in comments.(not so much the euthansia aspect, rather the treating of disease in the first place)
Christian Scientists do not accept medical treatment - they believe that their faith is the thing that is "real" and that things like ill-health are a result of lack of faith, and should therefore be fixable by prayer rather than medical treatment. I believe in some US states they are protected from the laws that would normally require people to seek medical care for their children, which is worrying. But I don't know what view they take on pets and other animals.
RSPCA wouldn't have done anything. They had taken the dog to the vet and agreed to all other treatment except the transfusion. The dog didn't suffer and died comfortable. It's worse when you see people who don't agree with euthanasia and allow their pets to suffer. My job sucks sometimes.
Jehovahs witnesdes dont have any problem with medical intervention, it is just blood transfusions they refuse. Organ donation is a bit of a grey area, they dont approve of it but leave it as a personal choice. Personally dont agree with the blood thing but I do not they raise a lot of money to fund alternatives to blood transfusion.
And believe that blood transfusion/any significant intervention shouldnt be permitted, act the same with their pets? So I know some religious people don't like medical intervention with people but I was wondering whether the same applied to their pets and (possibly related to another thread) is this a crime because theyre not seeking the medical attention the animal needs?