OK, so could a Jehovah's Witness please explain this?

[Housemum]

I really don't want to start a religious argument but I read this: story on Yahooand it made me so sad to think of a life wasted. Please could someone who is a JW or who knows a lot about it explain to me just why this is right? As I said, I don't want to argue but I really want to understand. In my personal opinion if God has given people the ability to save lives, they should use that. Why is accepting blood from someone who has willingly donated it so wrong?

Apologies for linking to a DM article but that's the problem with having Yahoo as a homepage!

I am not a JW, but I seem to recall (from previous threads on here actually!) that it is all to do with something in the bible about abstaining from blood.

and a quick google reveals

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." - Acts 15:28, 29, KJV.

Although if they are following that, then none of them should ever have sex either.

Unless it means no fornicating with animals. In which case, quite right!

Baaaa.

As an ex-Catholic I suppose it might be to do with Ever-Lasting Life.

I don't really understand what that is supposed to be but then I must be very shallow because I would prefer my children to be here where I can hold and love them.

My dd has been saved several times by blood transfusions and I have given short shrift to the representatives of our (very) local Kingdom Hall so often that they avoid me now.

I can't imagine a feasible explanation being given to a non-believer but perhaps I will be surprised. I have an open debating mind after all.

It's just a bit harder to do when your own little child has been deathly pale, blue-lipped, vomiting blood and losing consciousness and you have been listening to doctors arguing whether or not she will actually survive a transfer with the transfusion in place to the hospital which could stop the bleeding, or whether she will die in the ambulance.

I think they believe (because of the passage Hecate quotes above), that they will go to hell if they take a transfusion. Therefore, the choice is to send their child to hell, or else to let them go straight to heaven.

I don't agree with them, and think they've totally misunderstood, but AFAIK that's the logic.

BTW fornication in the Bible is only sex outside of marriage, so as long as they are married (to each other!) they can have sex.

The press (as always) are being very presumptuous with this story. This kid was killed because he was hit by a car and crushed against a wall suffering severe abdominal and leg injuries. Not ?because he refused a transfusion?, that?s just ignorant.

Were they the surgeons that treated this boy? Are they truly aware of the extent of his injuries?

Transfusions are not and have never been a miracle cure. Many people, unfortunately, die every day in road/traffic accidents because of their injuries, even after transfusions - but it seems if the person is found to be a JW then it gets reported their death was due to "not having transfusions", regardless of how serious the injuries were.

One other thing to mention, this boy would of been treated with many, usually very effective, alternatives to blood, its not like he would of just been left to die.

No-one should blame either the religious beliefs of the patient, nor the carers who tried their best. The bottom line is, the driver of the car was the cause of his death, not his beliefs, nor any failings of the carers.

B.

excellent post becky. I have no intentions of entering into this debate and fear I'll end up hiding it shortly as no doubt it will turn into an excuse to bash JW's but your post is exactly the point. The blood didn't kill him, the car did. I hate the press sometimes.

What would happen then if a JW child was given a transfusion when maybe the parents were in a car crash as well and could not talk?
Would they disown the child or try and sue for damages as their child will go to hell?

Oh please ignore me I am in a terrible mood and should stay away from these discussions in any case. They are too painful.

Ok, I think I'm beginning to understand a bit more, basically a literal translation of the Bible. I suppose in the same way that Jews avoid pork/shellfish, but obviously something that could (potentially) be life-threatening in this modern age, rather than just having to avoid certain foods.

I would still like to know more from a JW, if anyone is brave enough to come on here. I know the original story was from the Mail, and probably over-sensationalised, as the injuries could have been so severe that blod would have made no difference, but in theory if someone is in a critical condition and the transfusion of blood would make the difference between life and death, would you really believe that God has chosen that time for your relative to die or is it not that a human has caused that accident and another human can save that life?

The way I see it is that for some people, their religion is like a baby, something to protect and nurture. Some people would die for their baby and so would be prepared to die for their religion.

My parents are JW. I was brought up as one, but left when I was 15.

Basically they believe that verse from the bible, and are not allowed to eat blood, or take it into their bodies in any way- this includes transfusions. They will except blood emulsifiers (sp?). This a very very strict point of their religion. Adults carry "no blood" cards with them. I remember being given one too as a child, but not sure how this would be taken leagally if a child and it's parents were all involved in an accident. I expect in this case the congregation elders would get involved as guardians in some way.

Fwiw now, as a parent, I cannot understand atall how they could put a childs life at risk over religious beliefs.

On the other hand, I know what a strong faith my parents have in their religion. After the way they treated me when I told them I no longer believed, I can easily see how following their gods rules matter more than anything else to them.

Back to say TIMDI

REad this out of curiosity.

Becky, I see your point but still: if you had a chance to change someone's fate by allowing a transfusion, the chance to get your child to pull through and live. Wouldn't you take it?

It was the driver but aren't you colluding with him if you just stand by and keep the doctors away by refusing to have them try all that they can? I really think the JWs got the interpretation of this totally wrong. After all, it was stated in a time when medicine wasn't advanced enough to allow transfusions.

TIMDI I am for you.

Snobear, that is a bit harsh. Feel free to correct me, but I can't recall any incidents of JWs acting as suicide bombers. Yes, they can seem extreme in their beliefs but they are hardly terrorists.

Oh good, it was deleted as I was posting in protest. Thanks MN.

One of my ex-colleagues was a JW. We had a long chat about this once. She said that she would refuse a blood transfusion for her dc's if they needed one because she believed that that was the word of Jehovah, and as a believer she should obey that word.

She did say that she knew she was speaking hypothetically and that it wouldn't be as easy if she was in the situation.

We went on to talk about contaminated blood etc. She told me that JW's have a special machine that they have bought that hospitals use for them - I can't remember what it's called and what it does, sorry. She also told me that there is a special group made up of health proffessionals who are JW who advise hospitals about alternatives in situations where a transfusion may be required.

Sorry my details are rubbish, we had this conversation over 6 months ago and I can barely remember what I talked about yesterday these days...

mummyofexcitedprincesses...

To clarify, by referring to JWs as the "suicide bombers of Christendom", I was making a metaphoric comparison to a well-known extreme activity from the extremist fundamentalist fringe of another religion. This was to illustrate that the JWs are at the extreme fundamentalist fringe of the Christian religion.

I was not at any point actually suggesting that they have engaged in any bombing activity.

And thanks to mumsnet for the deletion. Freedom of the press is dead.

WRT JW children I know when I first started practicing as a social worker we made a JW child a ward of court when she was having a spinal operation, but this was years and years ago, not sure how it'd work now!

Whatever JWs believe , the doctors in this case would have been wrong to withhold a transfusion ( if they did. We don't know).

If you are under 18 the law only allows you to opt in to treatment, not opt out. Until the age of 18 when, as an adult they can decide for themselves, a court will sanction necessary treatment.This is in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights which is meant to protect ( especially) the vulnerable.

If a transfusion was dismissed then it would appear the doctors were badly advised. There are many precedents in such cases and the law is clear on this one.

Very articulate Snobear. However, you still called them bombers not extremists. All bombers are extremists but not all extremists are bombers.

If we are boring, feel free to leave and take your semantics elsewhere.