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!

Having had the good fortune to be brought up without religion, I find it impossible to imagine having such strong beliefs. I do wonder how the parents may feel years down the line, forever wondering 'what if we had not advised our son of JW teachings, he may stil be with us'.

thats true hammy but having that strong belief means that we believe we will see our loves ones again and they are just sleeping.

"do you know 80% of doctors interviewed would not accept a blood transfusion, they only use blood because it is cheap"

"Many leading experts in the medical field are now playing down the benefits of blood transfusions."

It's one thing having a belief that something is wrong and refusing to do something that would save your life (personally if I needed a transplant I wouldn't go off and shoot someone to get it, it would save my life, but ethically to me it's wrong).

However when the water has to be muddied with the complete and utter bobbins given above it makes you wonder how confident the JW's really are in their beliefs. If they were certain that something was just wrong they wouldn't need to make up facts and statistics.

By all means try and persuade people that receiving transfusions is morally wrong.

However don't try and lie and trick them into it with bad science and ridiculous claims.

Ladymistikal - I agree that the need for, and efficacy of, blood transfusions during planned operations has been disputed in recent years - news articles here and here, and am aware that the US military now favours bloodless operations for example, but there is a huge difference between a planned operations (when you might be able to make a case that the NHS should invest in intraoperative cell salvage equipment) and emergency surgery.

Badgerspaws- bad science?? Right ok, so the doctors on there are liars and making it up. They hired out actors to pretend to be doctors.rolls eyes It seems like when we do get the medical community on our side people still like to play the whole- we're child killers crap.

There is a video, with doctors being interviewed where they say there are alternatives to blood. What is the obsession with transfusions when there are alternatives out there?? Why is there even a debate anymore, when we can refuse blood AND still get treatment?? End of day people are always going to be biased, judgemental and rude because we've been portrayed as people we're not.

Of course there are alternatives. For many medical procedures there will be other methods that may be better or worse. Bringing that into this now though IS an attempt to confuse the issue.

The fact is that JWs are not saying "in this case method B might be best" they are saying "If a transfusion IS the only way to save that kid then let them die so I don't compromise my beliefs"

I stand up for the right of JWs to have that belief, but don't be surprised if I and others don't want to be around people who would let a kid die.

"Right ok, so the doctors on there are liars and making it up"

I'm sure you can find a doctor who will say anything in front of a camera. The bulk of medical opinion seems to be that blood transfusions do have their risks and might be overused sometimes but they can be vital lifesavers.

Even the Doctor in the Mail article cited above despite raising concerns over transfusions ends with the conclusion that "Transfusion has saved countless lives and, in my opinion, remains one of the miracles of modern medicine."

"What is the obsession with transfusions when there are alternatives out there?"

The alternatives are not yet as good as blood for all cases. And one of the main drivers for the alternatives isn't their "superiority" but the relative fragility of real blood and the lack of donors.

"It seems like when we do get the medical community on our side people still like to play the whole- we're child killers crap."

You do not have the medical community on your side.

However I wouldn't say that you are "child killers" either. I think that anyone has the right to refuse treatment that they consider to be unethical or immoral.

And that's fine with me.

And if that's the line that you took with your arguments then that too would be fine. I'd disagree with you but I support the principle of an argument based upon ethics.

What I have a huge problem with is the false claim that the medical community as a whole doesn't support transfusions and are deliberately using a poor treatment for some ill define reasons.

Argue ethics, argue morality and argue choice.

But trying to mislead people over "medical opinion" and scare them into not using blood is genuinely immoral.

If your ethics, morality and choices are strong enough then no claims about science are needed. If you do need to make claims about science then what does that say about the power and persuasiveness of your ethics, morality and choices?

I recently did some Mental Capacity Act training and there were a lot of case studies with regards to this. I am a very religiously tolerant person but ended the session feeling very angry about the decisions some people take.
There was a case where a young expectant mother was involved in a car crash or some other accident, and she did agree to blood transfusion to save her unborn child, but then her mother arrived on the ward and she changed her mind. I believe she and her child died. Will have to check facts.They were JW's, there are countless cases.
People are entitled to their beliefs, but for me as a non believer and a mother it is very hard for me to understand how parents can take that decision, I suppose if I had faith myself (even if not JW) then I might be able to understand better.

"People are entitled to their beliefs, but for me as a non believer and a mother it is very hard for me to understand how parents can take that decision"

Despite my anger at seeing the anti-blood thing supported by scare scaremongering claims and bad science (or more likely bad and selective understanding of science) I do actually feel some support for the JWs position on refusing blood transfusions even at the risk of death.

If your child needed a transplant and some dubious company offered to sell you an organ that came from a child whose poor family had let them be killed by the organ harvesting company in exchange for cash would you accept it? Or would you let your child die?

The basic question is would you do something that you consider to be unethical and immoral in order to save your life or that of your child?

And in the cold light of day I suspect that many people would say that they wouldn't.

And the right to reject treatment because you consider it unethical is something I do actually believe in.

Badgers paws, you outline a dilemma for sure, I would hate for me or my dcs to profit from some other childs misery, but have to say if my dc would die without the organ, I might take it, but just make sure that the company was prosecuted after. Otherwise that organ would not save even one life. does that make me a terrible person? I don't know, I suspect a lot of us would do far worse to save the life of our children.

Wow! Well done in raking up such an old thread!

To clarify: JWs believe that only 144,000 people can go to heaven. Everyone else that dies is simply gone. After Armageddon God will bring back all of the worthy people that have died, so even if you don't get to go to heaven (the people that do get to heaven "know" they are going but I've never met a witness who said they were chosen) you have the option of coming back to live forever on earth, if God thinks you deserve it.

JWs do not believe in Hell, at all in any shape or form.

No, but it seems they do think that if they do what god says they will get eternal life on earth.

So as with all religious people: JW, Jewish, Muslim, Christian etc it becomes a qustion of what they are prepared to do to keep in with god and get their reward.

funkydubs Interesting comment and one that I can believe. Thank you for sharing.

I always enjoy speaking with MDs because once they are comfortable around you, the things they reveal are really shocking. I remember when frontline staff were queueing to get the Swine flu jab, some GPs said they wouldn't dream of injecting something so toxic into their bodies.