Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

Re: Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

Thomas wrote:

Elihu wrote:
OSAKA (Kyodo) A member of the Jehovah's Witnesses died last month after giving birth by Caesarean section and refusing a blood transfusion, officials at Osaka Medical College reported.

Did someone nominate him for the Darwin Awards yet?

I would like to suggest that no one nominated "him" for dying in child birth, based on the not unreasonable assumption that only women can die in child birth.

0 Replies

A reasonable point.

0 Replies

Elihu wrote:

Are you unaware that JW's have medical procedures performed on them where blood is injected into their veins?

Are you aware that I have been associated with the Watchtower Society for over 35 years and have been around this many times? Are you also aware that this issue has been well covered in another thread which I referenced?

If the issue was as simple as should I allow someone else's donated blood to be injected into my veins, the answer would be simple. No.

However, medicine has progressed to the point where few issues are simple: Would I accept certain blood fractions? Would I allow my own blood to be collected and re administered during surgery? How about dialysis? How about removing some of my blood and treating it medically before re administering it to my body?

What is blood? Certainly not the water. Is it the salts? If the life (soul) of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), what does that mean? Are we speaking only of the DNA?

The result has been a constant re evaluating of the admonition to abstain from blood. Where formerly I carried around a signed card saying NO BLOOD, I now supplement it with a document outlining which procedures I will accept. I go over it yearly and make changes if necessary.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Are you also aware that this issue has been well covered in another thread which I referenced?

I don't have time to read that entire thread. It is very long. I first asked you if JW's consider it a violation of God's law to have blood injected into their veins. You said yes. I then asked you if you were aware that JW's have medical procedures performed on them where blood is injected into their veins. I assume from your reply that you are aware of this. So, do JW's think they can have blood injected into their veins and at the same time be abstaining from blood?

0 Replies

Elihu wrote:

neologist wrote:
Are you also aware that this issue has been well covered in another thread which I referenced?

I don't have time to read that entire thread. It is very long. I first asked you if JW's consider it a violation of God's law to have blood injected into their veins. You said yes. I then asked you if you were aware that JW's have medical procedures performed on them where blood is injected into their veins. I assume from your reply that you are aware of this. So, do JW's think they can have blood injected into their veins and at the same time be abstaining from blood?

I gave my qualified answer. What more do you need?

0 Replies

You said that JW's believe that injecting blood into their veins is a violation of God's law, yet JW's have medical procedures performed on them where blood is injected into their veins. And these medical procedures have been approved by your governing body. You think this makes sense? So far you haven't even attempted to resolve this contradiction.

0 Replies

Jehovah's Witness shuns blood, dies
Just a question, but how many people die in a hospital after having a blood transfusion? Seems to me the lady has the right to make such a legal, medical, ethical, religious decision like that, doesn't she? How many of us want to be forced into doing something we don't believe is right? People make life and death decisions all the time, don't they?

0 Replies

Re: Jehovah's Witness shuns blood, dies

hankarin wrote:

Just a question, but how many people die in a hospital after having a blood transfusion? Seems to me the lady has the right to make such a legal, medical, ethical, religious decision like that, doesn't she? How many of us want to be forced into doing something we don't believe is right? People make life and death decisions all the time, don't they?

She had the right to make a stupid decision. And it was so.

0 Replies

No one is saying this woman should have been forced to have a blood transfusion. I'm just trying to figure out why JW's believe as they do. While this woman was dying in the hospital for lack of blood, other JW's throughout the world were having medical procedures done where blood was injected into their veins. This makes no sense to me.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K, Elihu.

You keep saying over and over about JW's having blood injected but I have yet to see you offer any evidence of the claim.

How do you know this and what proceedure are you referring to?

I know a lot of Catholics who use birth control and Mormons who don't stockpile food. Should they be disqualified from their religion? Sometimes people break the rules.

I don't really get your point.

0 Replies

This spiritual or mental condition of Woodworth, if continue
The arguments for or against the JW position on matters can and should be decided upon individually. Arguments against their position using words like occult and demonism sound much like what we might expect from those who hated first century Christians. Matthew 10:22-25 and 12:24-28 expose such thinking as that of the Pharisees in their hatred and opposition to Jesus. Some things have not changed, YET.

As far a blasphemy being a victimless crime (a quote I noticed in the string) you might want to see Matthew 12:31. It appears that there will be many victims of blasphemy.

0 Replies

She had the right to make a stupid decision. And it was so.
Does that mean that all those who decided to have a blood transfusion and then died afterward made a "stupid" decision also?

0 Replies

Re: She had the right to make a stupid decision. And it was

hankarin wrote:

Does that mean that all those who decided to have a blood transfusion and then died afterward made a "stupid" decision also?

At least they gave themselves a chance. This woman put the intepretation of an obscure scripture (written by people incidentally) ahead of the welfare of her child. She was STUPID, DELUDED, and SELFISH.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/217.gif

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

You keep saying over and over about JW's having blood injected but I have yet to see you offer any evidence of the claim.

Well, my posts were primarily directed to JW's and they certainly know what I'm saying is true. That's why Neologist didn't ask me for evidence of my claim. There are medical procedures approved by the JW's governing body wherein blood is injected into the veins of the patient.
I described a couple of these procedures in my second post on page 5.

0 Replies

The danger of posting on a forum such as this is that you cannot direct your post "primarily" to someone.

It seems to be that the difference is clear, judging by your post on page 5. They are having their OWN blood injected into them, not somebody elses.

0 Replies

At least they gave themselves a chance. This woman put the i
As I understand the story, the child was already successfully delivered and not at risk from her decision. In addition, I am not convinced that she was more or less STUPID, DELUDED and/or SELFISH that those who choose to take a blood transfusion. My father died after receiving several transfusions and I have an uncle with hepatitis from a blood transfusion he received a few years ago. I am simply not convinced that "blood transfusions" are the "end of discussion" answer. Alternatives are available.

0 Replies

Elihu wrote:

boomerang wrote:
You keep saying over and over about JW's having blood injected but I have yet to see you offer any evidence of the claim.

Well, my posts were primarily directed to JW's and they certainly know what I'm saying is true. That's why Neologist didn't ask me for evidence of my claim. There are medical procedures approved by the JW's governing body wherein blood is injected into the veins of the patient.
I described a couple of these procedures in my second post on page 5.

If you are referring to the post you made here:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2723964#2723964

I believe answered it here:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2725228#2725228

But you appear to have read only the first sentence.

0 Replies

Oh, and welcome to the forum, hank. I'm sure you will find many interesting folks here.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

It seems to be that the difference is clear, judging by your post on page 5. They are having their OWN blood injected into them, not somebody elses.

JW's believe the Bible forbids eating any kind of blood. Therefore they believe it is against God's law for them to eat their own blood.

0 Replies

Thank you neologist. I am intrigued by the by-line. Any explanation?

0 Replies

Jehovah's Witness refuses blood, dies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know