Why do Jehovah's witnesses, amongst others, refuse medical treatment?

Question

Why do Jehovah's witnesses and some other religious groups refuse blood transfusions and similar medical treatment? I read about this guy who died because he refused a blood tranfusion! What about their kids? Would they have the legal right to refuse this treatment for their children?

Answer 1

Why people Do/Don't pursue various medical treatments varies from person to person, faith to faith, country to country.

I am a Christian, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.  We don't accept BTs, in part, because the Bible admonishes Christians to abstain from Blood.

In my area, the local hospitals have to have you sign permission slips if you want a BT, because it is such an unpopular choice, and in many cases there are many other alternatives.

I have gone through many procedures that didn't involve blood, and in the case someone in my family "needed blood" we found alternatives.  My grandmother lived for 8? years on dialysis with doctors telling her, if she didn't get BT RIGHT THEN, she wouldn't last the week.  She finally reached a point where she would confront them about their trying to scare her into going against her conscience.  Meanwhile, even before she was a Witness she ALWAYS refused BTs because of the health risks.

Answer 2

yes, they let their children die & then after they are dead they publish them in thier monthly magazines saying that they are MARTYERS!  what kind of sick S**t IS THAT?  ive seen the particular publication. i read it and it's sad.

Answer 3

JWs are not against medical treatmensts, except of  course for treatments that conflict with the Bible.

Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

Eating and drinking “blood” are not the same in PROCEDURE as transfusing blood. But BOTH ACT use the SAME product which is BLOOD.

Acts 15:29 talks about ABSTAINING FROM THE PRODUCT (BLOOD).

When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn’t practiced?  Or have  you  ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to “ABSTAIN from Blood” will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to “do not EAT blood” but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction “abstain from blood” and NOT “abstain from eating/drinking blood”?

The question then  is, when Acts 15 states “abstain from blood” is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians,  understood that “abstaining from blood” means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion".  The early Christians also understood that they won’t use blood for medical reasons, that’s why they didn’t  use blood to cure epilepsy.



The point there is “eating and drinking blood” means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.

If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you’ll understand. You don’t force your allergic kid to accept  nuts , do you?

Here are some excerpt from a news.

“For the past 30 years, Dr. Estioko, currently medical director at St. John's Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery Center in Santa Monica, California, has performed surgeries on high-risk heart patients from all over the world, specializing in repeat operations and multiple valve surgeries.

This is a higher level of surgical technique," Dr. Estioko stresses. "Not everybody can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are not so good, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field."

Estioko spent 11 years in New York, where he was also professor at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. In 1990, he moved to California to be part of the Kay Medical Group in Los Angeles in 1990, a cardiac surgery group where he stayed for 14 years before moving on to St. John's Health Center.”

Notice he said “NOT EVERYBODY can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are NOT SO GOOD, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field”.

Have you asked that doctor about “nitric oxide” considering that the donated blood lost much of it? Have you read this news?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/st...

It states in part:

For years, physicians noticed that patients who received transfusions of banked blood were MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who got NO BLOOD.

Duke University researchers believe they know why — and how the problem might be solved.

Donated blood almost immediately begins to lose a gas that opens vessels so oxygen and nutrients get to tissues, the Duke researchers report. Without that gas — nitric oxide — the vessels stay closed, blood can’t deliver its precious cargo, and patients founder, the scientists suggest in two articles published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other doctors supports bloodless medicine.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...

If a certain doctor would like to commit fornication with your own child first, before curing him, are you as a parent will abide by that?  Are you sacrificing your own child’s life if you, as a parent,  do not permit the fornication or are you protecting your own child as a person that you love?

You  normally won’t allow that bad thing to happen because you believe that fornication is a sin, and is disrespecting and abusing your own kid and you love your kid. JWs believe that having a blood transfusion into our bodies, is a sin and a disrespect and abuse for our own bodies and our own kids.

Just like fornication, the use of blood in the body is one of things we have to abstain from according to Acts 15.

The abstention in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for the use of blood to be in the body but also fornication.We have to abstain from fornication and the use of blood inside our human body.

JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it.  We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion so that we can live. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.

The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.

Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Does someone  here scream at them?

Have you ever wondered why in Rev 2:14, , Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e.,  to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which reflects the original instructions in Acts 15:29?. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus’ slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote  Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect.  So you think, the instructions in Acts 15:29 are only temporary? And notice that the instructions given in Rev 2 are not only for Gentiles but to all Christians, even Jewish Christians.

Lev 17:10 states “‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood”

Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That’s why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.

The prohibition for blood is repeated in Acts 15:28-29 but instead of just saying do not EAT blood, Acts 15 changed it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, which is a general term to encompass not only eating, drinking of any sort of blood but the future use of blood in the body, which includes transfusion.

Is  a subcomponent/fraction of  the main components  of blood, considered blood? In the case of an egg, is an egg white, egg yolk, still an egg? I think it is, an egg white is still an egg. Is the subcomponent of an egg white, still an egg?  Is oxygen, a subcomponent of water, water still?  The same with blood, is one of the subcomponents of a main component still considered blood? Some will say yes, some will say no. This  a personal decision we have to answer to God.



If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!. Acts 15:29 Please notice YOU WILL PROSPER, GOOD HEALTH TO YOU.  (The word health here is all encompassing, not only limited to  spiritual or physical health, otherwise it should have said Good spiritual or physical health to you.)  Have you not wondered why Acts 15:29 EXPLICITLY stated those two reasons as why the Gentiles should abstain from blood and NOT the reason of maintaining peaceful relations with the Jews or other reasons?

For example, a  few weeks back, a news reported:

“It doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.

Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.

"If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.”

So without nitric oxide, blood cannot help supply back oxygen to the body. So to say that blood transfusion will save life is not totally true.

There are some alternatives to blood, that each individual JWs  can use depending upon their conscience.

So basically, if a JW lost a lot of blood, we would like to have the volume expanders and other nonblood products or practices that help replace the lost oxygen. Please see www.noblood.org

Other doctors though are recognizing the alternatives to blood transfusion. Please see this website.

http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...

The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood?  Do you know of any God’s faithful followers who DRANK or ATE  blood from LIVE animals or humans? So it is wrong to say that you can use blood to be  

Answer 4

JW do not take blood transfusions for Biblical reasons.

However for reasons of conscience they may take:

* red cell fractions

* hemoglobin-based blood substitutes

* white cell fractions including interferons and interleukins

plasma fractions including albumin, globulins, and clotting factors; and

* platelet fractions

(all components of blood, but separated for use)

The list has grown over years - either from further 'light' or growing pressure.

Answer 5

Well, to restate it slightly for purposes of clarification, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept any and all medical treatments.  They particularly reject those which violate God's law.  Blood transfusions would fall into that category.  

It is not because Jehovah's Witnesses believe they equate to eating blood as some rumors tend to suggest.  Respectfully submitted for your consideration:

"By every standard medical and logical, Henry Jackson, lying unconscious in a New Jersey hospital on his 32nd birthday, was finished. Massive internal hemorrhaging had drained him of 90% of his blood. His level of hemoglobin--the vital, oxygen-carrying compound in his red cells--had plummeted from a normal reading of 13 to an ominous 1.7, a number that one of his doctors characterized as "incompatible with survival." A blood transfusion could save him, but his wife, torn between her husband's life and their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses--a religious community that prohibits transfusions because of biblical references to the sacredness of blood--had refused. Eventually, at the urging of members of her community, and in the face of a hospital threat of a court order to thwart her, Claudette Jackson had Henry transferred to nearby Englewood Hospital's New Jersey Institute for the Advancement of Bloodless Medicine and Surgery."

The above excerpt is taken from an article in Time Magazine entitled "Heroes of Medicine - Bloodless Surgery."  I find it noteworthy that although this man lost 90% of his blood and yet survived, it did not make headlines.  Why not?  Could it be because it did not fit the normal canards that lead the news?  We all read of people who supposedly died because they did not receive a blood transfusion.  Do doctors guarantee that you will live if you get one?  No.  Then how is it we hear this oft-repeated statement that "you will die if you don't get one"?  If they cannot guarantee you will live, why do people keep guaranteeing that you will die?  Countless thousands and thousands of Witnesses live without them.  I did.  And so did Mr. Jackson above.

There are more than 50 hospitals in the U.S. alone that practice bloodless surgery.  Since these hospitals PRACTICE bloodless surgery, they must recognize the merit of it.

Acts 15:29 plainly commands Christians to abstain from blood.  Did you notice the word abstain?  It is translated from the Greek which carries that meaning.  Thus, you can pick up virtually any Bible translation and you will find it.  That verse also commands Christians to abstain from fornication.  Does that mean that oral fornication is forbidden but any other form of fornication is perfectly acceptable?  How ludicrous!  And how dangerous it would be to reason that way.

Jehovah's Witnesses want the best medical treatment for themselves and their families.  There are many attempts to sustain or preserve life, yes; but every attempt is not acceptable to God.  To illustrate, my next-door neighbor who has been convicted of murders in the past, has repeatedly made serious threats on my life.  There is every reason to believe that, given the opportunity, he will carry out this threat.  When he tries to do so, I defend my life, killing him in the process.  We know this as self-defense.  Now in that same scenario, instead of waiting for his attempt, I kill him first.  In both instances, I took measures to sustain my life.  But in the second instance, I am in the wrong because while I have every right to defend my life, I have no right to do so by carrying out a preemptive attack.  What point am I trying to make?  That although God gives us the right to sustain and preserve our lives, any and every method to do so is not acceptable to God.  Applying that rationale to blood transfusions, I have every right to sustain and preserve my life and I am extremely grateful to the medical community which helps me do that.  There is no doubt that oftentimes, blood transfusions help; there is also no doubt that oftentimes they don't, and sometimes they definitely harm.  There is no need to doubt the medical professional's sincere desire to sustain and preserve life and that's what they are trained to do.  But when such things as method, reasons, effect, and sincere desire to help are put aside, leaving only the fundamental act itself, we are left with the bald fact that basically, an attempt is being made to sustain or preserve life with blood.  This is the key:  attempting to sustain or preserve life with blood. There is nothing in scripture, explicit or implied, which would allow humans to sustain or preserve life with blood.

If I may, even if one were dying, is that a good time to break God's law?  Moments from death?  Or isn't it rather a way to say, "God, my life is more important than any of your commandments."

Hannah J Paul

Answer 6

As a Jehovah Witness you must abstain from blood, which includes not taking it into your body at all. If a doctor said that you must have a blood transfusion or you will die, you would ask for alternative medical treatment, that don't involve the misuse of blood. We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God's law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are sure that the Creator of blood, Jehovah knows what is best for us. We must thus show respect to blood.

Answer 7

You should become a JW, MJ. F@ggot.

Answer 8

Jehovah's witnesses do not accept blood transfusions based on the Bible's command to "abstain from blood."

God forbids eating meat without first draining the blood. Many Jehovah's witnesses have needlessly died because the governing body considers blood transfusions to be "eating blood." Of course, their view on this has recently changed to allow some use of blood. But the governing body is careful not to explain its new, complicated rules on blood to its followers.

I read a story about a woman who refused blood she sadly died. Leaving behind her husband, 3 kids and the rest of her family. Personally, I don't agree with that and I think in someways it's a little selfish. As now her kids who were very small have to grow up without their mother.

Answer 9

They don't refuse medical treatment. They only refuse one of many treatments available, that is blood transfusions...They have no problems in allowing medical using synthetic replacements....In the end its much safer because they don't run the risk of contracting HIV or other infections.

We re in the 21 th century, there are many other treatments which prove to be even safer than blood. True they maybe a bit expensier but safer

Answer 10

We wre discussing in this in the staff room today! Adult JW can refuse blood donors and the doctors/authorities can do nothing about it but in the cases of children in life threatening situations then the children have their custody (short term) signed over to a warden (essentially a social worker) thus removing them from the JW requiremnet to not have a blood transfusion. On recovery they are quickly signed back to the parents thus the parents are technically sticking to their religious beliefs and the children return to good health.

Answer 11

Scientologists also dont take medicines, I think they believe that you can cure yourself with positive thinking.

JWs probably pray that God will heal them.

Christians go to drs & get drugs and pray.

I had cancer removed this year, I follow the Christian route, I got it cut out, and prayed. I am now clean. Im happy with that decision