A Jehovas Witness Woman Dies - refused blood...

That's a good question. However, it is easy for me to answer. God values our lives, no matter who we are or what we do. What God hates is the sin and not the sinner. In other words, he hates what we do bad and not hate us as a person.

With that in mind, God is against the act of suicide. He hates the loss of any life. However, he also understands that some will lose their life in keeping their integrity to God. Even Jesus spoke of this.

Refusing blood is a gross act against God according to what the Bible teaches. It is in the same category of gross sins such as fornication, adultery , homosexuality and worshipping idols. Not forgetting, God hates the sin and not the sinner. There is no contradiction. We will attempt everything possible to save our and other's lives by alternative means without the use of blood.

It might be criminal in your court of law but not God's law. Hence, the verse found in Acts 5:29 "We must obey God as ruler rather than men" applies perfectly in this regard.

 

I would support the state stepping in and so the transfusion could take place. That young mother was a mother, wife, daughter and granddaughter of someone and her life shouldn't be taken away from them by an organization. I lost a good friend due to the policy of the religious system that he was living under. He had kids in college and high school at the time of his religion directed death. I never felt such anger toward a religious system.

In California, parents fear taking their kids to the emergency room for fear of Child Protective Services accusing them of injuring the child and taking the child away. I hope they take children away when a parent say that the organization they follow currently says it's wrong to take some blood products.

 

I would have to disagree with you on this one. I don't agree with their beliefs at all and don't relate eating blood with a blood transfusion, but it is a belief that we can hopeful educate rather than dictate. If you give the gov't control here, there will be no stoping gov't intrusion. Yes, I agree the parent was foolish and cost her child a parent, but she didn't kill anyone but herself and maybe the child and other family members will see this as a wake-up call and really test their beliefs.

 

Our beliefs are tested every day! Don't worry. We are very awake. I don't think the parent was foolish at all. She did not compromise her integrity to God one bit. According to the Bible she will be resurrected in the new system. Can't see that being foolish in any way.

This is the problem many have. Everyone keeps thinking of "now". Our time on this Earth is like a blip compared to what God promises for the "meek and mild" ones.

You and others can rubbish and poo-poo all you like. We make an informed decision and we stick to it.

 

I am all for limiting government intrusion but each citizen should have the right to life. Children should be protected those that would take it. There are plenty of things we as parents are required to do to protect our children, accepting proper medical care isn't much to ask.

Debunked, how would you successfully educated somebody on a topic that is dictated to them under threat of disfellowshiping and shunning?

 

So, you want us to go against what the Bible teaches? That would be like saying "No" to God. In other words, you want people to do things according to what they think is right and not according to God's way?

Dictated....LOL...You have no idea buddy...No idea at all...why do you persist down this line? Every one of us know the rules and do our very best to abide by them. You seem to make up your rules as you go along and judge everyone else by them. Kinda reminds me of many other religions.

 

"100% bloodless surgery public hospitals" accept only those cases, where blood transfusion is not needed. If a patient with a major injury and with more than 2 liters (or maybe more) of blood loss, comes in bloodless hospital, they will probably not be able to save him/her without blood transfusion. None of first 10 sites after 'bloodless surgery' search in Google claim that all patients can be cured without blood transfusion. Quote: "Pennsylvania Hospital is now able to offer so-called "bloodless surgery" to 90 percent of its patients who want it (msnbc news, April 24, 2006).

"Classical" hospitals also tend to perform bloodless surgery everytime when this is possible. Many operations, like appendix removal and all operations when less than about 1.5l of blood loss is expected, can be performed without blood transfusion.

Drugs and solutions used in bloodless surgery are not 100% safe. One of them - Epoetin alfa - may cause epilepsy or thrombosis.

Dr. Thomas Kickler, an expert in bloodless surgery (from University of Pensylvania) as well as conventional, transfusion-based methods:

Bloodless surgery is not suitable for all patients.

 

I wonder if reason can sometimes get to the JWs. Even the most legalistic folks, the Jews, have certain exemptions such as you CAN eat pork if it means preserving one's life (saving one from dying). Certain things such as worship false idols is a definite no to Jews even if it means loss of life.

But receiving a blood transfusion??? I guess we don't stand a chance reasoning with the JWs: "The Watchtower says NO." Therefore it is pointless arguing with a JW. They don't follow the Scriptures but the Watchtower teachings. They really should change the name from Jehovah's Witnesses to Watchtowerites.

 

Now this may be a challenging question.

Reasons against forcing someone to accept what he/she refused:

1. The law in many countries forbids forcing patients to accept treatment they are refusing. This is usually determined in 'Patient's rights law'. Everyone is free person and nobody has right to decide about someone's life (if he/she is adult and aware of what he/she's doing) as long the person in question didn't break any law.

2. It is God who would be able to force a patient to accept particular treatment, but he doesn't. God may advice a patient to do this or that. This advice comes in the form of iner voice: 'something' is telling you what to do.

It is also God who can advice a doctor what to do. If God says to the doctor: give transfusion to this person despite of his/her refusal, than this would be the right thing to do. But I'm not sure if God would give such an advice.

I understand this problem this way: Jesus says: "Give to a Caesar what is Caesar's and give God what is God's." Caesar in our times is a country law. So, it is Jesus who says we have to obey our countries' laws, and the reason why we should obey countries' laws is because Jesus said so. Free deciding about which law to obey and which not can quickly lead to total anarchy.

 

Tbarr, I don't know about you, but I don't accept a doctors opinion as fact. I myself, would prefer not to use blood unless it was absolutely necessary, I would prefer a substitute when possible or if blood loss is minimal. I have learned over the years just how much doctors are practicing and I don't necessarily want to be their test subject.

Following health, I have found that most of our doctors only receive their education from a system controlled by the drug companies, so they are clueless to preventative medicine. The would rather give a pill to the over-eater than tell them to stop eating so much for example.

We can't be legalistic in dealing with legalism, even if it is contorted.

 

Ever wondered why they still have written on their windows: "Medical Practice"??? The name should be self explanatory: it's where they practise on you.

 

I read the Bible and easily see in the context that drinking of blood is banned. I believe Charles Taze Russell interpreted it the same way and maybe in the future the Watchtower will get back in line with its founder and the obvious reading.

I find that I can go into a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Four Square, Assemblies of God, Methodist, or just about any other Christian denomination and find agreement on core doctrine and room for liberty on non-core doctrine. As a JW you don't have that liberty. They dictate to you that you can't save your child's life when they absolutely need a transfusion, they also dictate to you can't perform even minor patriotic act. They control and get their followers to rationalize so that all choices will be in line with the organization.

Here's a short video of one young man's experience with the control they had over his mind. Was he not being dictated to??

 

So, you raisedfinger guys , you prefer to perform self-practice? Not necessary a bad choice, I'm not saying that. Doctors have some info and tools. Doctors may be assistants of your health. They saved my life twice so far and I have no idea how could I help to myself in those situations. They used drugs from drug companies. I ignore doctor's advice sometimes - and this is not my advice for anyone who don't know exactly what is he doing with his/her health.

 

"They"??? You can be so vague in your reasoning, aggressive as it is. You make out that "they" dictate everything we do. I'll repeat this for the 32,000 umpteenth whatever time. You have no idea. Why? Because you are not there and you don't know the truth of these things. And for the 32,000 umpteenth time, it is so easy to point fingers from afar. It's like standing at the beach and pointing to another country over the ocean and saying "they are bad people over there because I read somewhere that they do blah, blah, blah"

Surely you have better things to do than to try and bring down an organization based on nothing.

 

How about bringing down an organisation for telling a mother who is bleeding to death that god doesn't want to her to receive blood, Stay alive and raise her children?

Religion can get away with murder, And they practically have in this case.

 

Call it what you want. You are wrong on either account. However, you have every right to try taking it to court. Going by your "high horse" judgmental views you would surely be viewed as someone the courts would approve as wise and worthy wouldn't they?

 

well if the excuse for a husband can take the hospital (as was reported in the paper) to court for neglect i'm sure i could present a decent case against the religion.

 

In Islam, we are allowed to accept blood transfusions but like Judaism and Christianity, we're not allowed to eat blood.

 

I can't see that happening at all (referring to you presenting such a case).

I think it's amazing how the judicial system the entire western world relies on so heavily uses the Bible to "swear an oath" on. Yet, most people don't have a clue what is in it. If they did, many would have a great deal to think about before swearing such an oath.

 

When i done jury service i didn't swear on the bible. So so much for relying "heavily" on the bible.