Blood Transfusions

[BrokenfoREVer]

I don't follow any religion that bows to the greater knowledge of a higher power. My religion teaches that one should take control over one's own life and what happens in.

Therefore in terms of the OP, medical intervention, blood tranfusions etc present no problem to me, religiously. I wouldn't hesistate to allow myself, or my son to be treated with a transfusion if he needed one. As for taking the time to recover using other methods (if ofc that option is avalible to you) well, if I have a headache I can soldier on & I will recover. Or I can take some painkillers, feel better much faster & get on with my day. Same deal imo.

Tasha, I'm glad the ladies on here have given you some comfort & I hope you can find a belief that helps you in this life. All children are born innocent, regardless of whether they take a breath on his earth or spend their time here basking in a mothers love.

My own personal view on my own loss is not that my child is in paradise, nor that she is an angel. I simply believe she is held in the arms of those I have also lost, who protect her and keep her safe until I die and I can hold her in my own arms. The spirit is ageless and formless and I will know her again when I pass from this life.

 

[Natsku]

If parents are held accountable for their children and choose a blood transfusion for them (the child not being able to choose themselves) would it be the parent that is not allowed into paradise or the child? Or both I guess. Just wondering cos I guess if I did believe blood transfusions are a sin I would risk going to hell to save my child's life and I can't understand why another parent wouldn't but I can understand if it was the child that would be going to hell. As if you believe in that then you would believe that hell is much worse than death so I suppose in that belief you would be choosing the better option.

 

[Cleo]

I always read these threads with interest, because like Tasha, I think faith must be a nice and comforting thing to have. I admire those like Shanandboc and Eternal who are always so eloquent and respectful in their posts about their beliefs. I have read a few news and debate discussions where they have commented, and I find that they never present their values as the only way to live your life.They never come across as preaching. They are always without judgement and without disrespect for those who believe differently from them and as an agnostic, I so appreciate that. I don't need to understand them to respect them. I may choose differently than Shanandboc if faced with the need for a blood transfusion for my child, but that doesn't mean her decision is wrong and mine is right. It means she believes something I don't, and she makes her choices based on a value and belief system that is the core of her existence. If you read her posts, you can tell that she has not made these decisions lightly. She is thoroughly knowledgeable on every aspect of her faith, and she knows why she believes what she does. Again, I don't have to agree with her, but I definitely respect her.

 

[lhancock90]

I understand if, for whatever reason, you choose not to have a blood transfusion.
I disagree with putting your child at risk for a decision they did not make.

 

[louandivy]

I think in regards to any choice that is rooted in religious belief, it is really difficult to have a rational debate. It may appear as if someone who chooses not to accept blood transfusions is choosing god over their child, but to the parent who has faith, it only makes totally logical sense for them to do anything they can to prevent them and their child from sinning and going to hell. I don't think it could possibly be considered a matter of choosing one over the other because god is all-encompassing and ultimately the absolute root of everything in itself.Plus I don't think the argument of not forcing your decisions onto your child really works either because I dont think anyone would refuse a blood transfusion (rightfully or wrongfully) unless they thought that there was a very significant and valid reason which of course they would use for their child too.

I am not a follower of organised religion myself though and I guess that kind of argument gets complicated and sticky because it could also be used to justify religious homophobia and sexism.

 

[Eternal]

I always read these threads with interest, because like Tasha, I think faith must be a nice and comforting thing to have. I admire those like Shanandboc and Eternal who are always so eloquent and respectful in their posts about their beliefs. I have read a few news and debate discussions where they have commented, and I find that they never present their values as the only way to live your life.They never come across as preaching. They are always without judgement and without disrespect for those who believe differently from them and as an agnostic, I so appreciate that. I don't need to understand them to respect them. I may choose differently than Shanandboc if faced with the need for a blood transfusion for my child, but that doesn't mean her decision is wrong and mine is right. It means she believes something I don't, and she makes her choices based on a value and belief system that is the core of her existence. If you read her posts, you can tell that she has not made these decisions lightly. She is thoroughly knowledgeable on every aspect of her faith, and she knows why she believes what she does. Again, I don't have to agree with her, but I definitely respect her.

Thank you, I tend not to say much about my beliefs on the forum, unless asked, because I don't want to come across that way, I respect everyone's beliefs and everyone has merit. I don't know why I decided to say so much on this thread, lol.

 

[libbylou]

I guess I just have a hard time understanding how God could expect you to allow your child to die (if there was no other option besides transfusion)
It's not like we're talking about putting the mark of the beast on your child here, we're talking about a simple medical procedure.

I'm not a JW, but I believe in God and I believe my child and I are going to a better place when we're done on this earth, but regardless of that I do not believe that God would expect me to allow my child to die if a simple transfusion could save her life.
The God I believe in is a God of love, forgiveness and acceptance and He would never keep my child or I from heaven for not following the Bible to a "T"

Comparing Muslims abstaining from alcohol is totally different. Abstaining from alcohol is not going to cause someone to die.

I know you've said there are medical alternatives, but as I pointed out there are situations where these alternatives are not available or viable. It's all fine and good to say "surgeons should be more careful", but what about car accidents, childbirth, assaults, cancer, etc.

There are many many interpretations of the Bible, and many Biblical scriptures that simply do not apply to life today.
I'm sure some of you have seen this sarcastic letter than was floating around the internet a few years back

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

But like I said, I guess I'm biased because my husband would be dead if it weren't for the transfusions and bone marrow transplant, and my child would not exist.

 

[ShanandBoc]

As a christian im aware that all quoted above is from the old testament, and are laws and hygiene practices given to the nation of israel at that time to protect them and is an historical account of that period, not a set of laws that we now need to follow. Jesus bought a new covenant and a sacrafice which the bible says made obsolete much of the mosaic law.

What still applied was re stated in the new testament - love ur neighbour as yourself, love God, flee from idolatry, adultery and fornication, do not murder, steal etc and abstain from blood was specifically mentioned.

Anyway i thought this video was really interesting as a collection of news stories on the merits of bloodless surgery and how more doctors (has many doctors interviewd in the video) and hospital are not only encouraging but endorsing blood free surgery and aknowledging the associated risks that come with transfusions. It highlights one treatment which jw's have no issues with, where their own blood is not stored but rather in a continuous manner, any blood lost is captured, immediately pumped out of their body during surgery, cleaned and pumped straight back in without stopping - much more beneficial than stored blood anyway as it looses the Gas in the blood thats function is to keep blood vessels open and oxygenate the blood .eta - it also explains why bloodless surgery is one of the fastest growing fields in medicine

Its very very interesting and i encourage all to watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHJfLMquC5Y

 

[Kess]

Thank you Kai.

And Shan, thank you so much for taking your time to write that to me. It does make sense to me about how the bible talks of how the earth is now. The passages do bring comfort. I am going to spend the next few days looking for study aids, and gradually study as many religions as possible. Obviously it would take me years to study each one in depth but I am pretty sure that I could get a sense of if a religion's core beliefs make sense to me, and are something I do/can believe in, in a fairly short period of time. And if they are then study it more in depth.

Tasha I hope you find what you're looking for. As a seeker myself, can I recommend Religioustolerance.org and Beliefnet.com, both sites I have found useful.

I've always found it weird how people interpret the bible and there are so many strands of Christianity.
Even though I don't believe, it makes so much more sense to me to follow it literally if you are going to follow it at all! x

See to me, it makes more sense to follow it literally than to pick and choose, but most sense of all to take it as a collection of historical documents very much of its time and each selected for inclusion in "the Bible" by the Church over the years for different reasons. Hence the contradictions in the gospels - they were written by authors with different backgrounds and for different audiences. Peel back the layers and hopefully we can eventually find the real Jesus.

If parents are held accountable for their children and choose a blood transfusion for them (the child not being able to choose themselves) would it be the parent that is not allowed into paradise or the child? Or both I guess. Just wondering cos I guess if I did believe blood transfusions are a sin I would risk going to hell to save my child's life and I can't understand why another parent wouldn't but I can understand if it was the child that would be going to hell. As if you believe in that then you would believe that hell is much worse than death so I suppose in that belief you would be choosing the better option.

I wondered this too. Would a JW mind answering if you don't mind, do you have a concept of an age of responsibility? Under a certain age a child within many faiths (e.g. Catholicism) won't be considered responsible for their actions, so can't go to Hell or incur God's anger. Is this a concept JW have? If so, why would the child be punished for the actions of its parent? Or is it the parent who would take the consequences?

As a christian im aware that all quoted above is from the old testament, and are laws and hygiene practices given to the nation of israel at that time to protect them and is an historical account of that period, not a set of laws that we now need to follow. Jesus bought a new covenant and a sacrafice which the bible says made obsolete much of the mosaic law.

What still applied was re stated in the new testament - love ur neighbour as yourself, love God, flee from idolatry, adultery and fornication, do not murder, steal etc and abstain from blood was specifically mentioned.

Something I've been struggling with personally in my seeking is this very issue - whether Jesus did obsolete Jewish law. He seems to contradict himself in gospel accounts, e.g. the phrase that not one bit of the Law will pass away and a couple of others I can't remember, I'm sure you're more familiar with exact quotes from the Bible than me anyway!

I also have a question: if Mosaic Law was obsolete, do JW have a problem with homosexuality? The only place it is mentioned in the Bible is Leviticus, and the word used to condemn it is the same word used to condemn the eating of shellfish. Jesus made no mention at all of homosexuality.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I understand if, for whatever reason, you choose not to have a blood transfusion.
I disagree with putting your child at risk for a decision they did not make.

agree with this. I still think that I would always have one if I needed one regardless because I am my childrens carer and it would be unfair of me to put my health at such a risk.

 

[Fergie]

I worked for nearly 20 years in various hospital depts and i've seen the life and death situations that require blood products. If i or my daughter or son to be needed a blood transfusion, i would allow it no question. That is my choice based on scientific and medical evidence. I was also a blood donor and am on the Anthony Nolan Register. I am agnostic.

I don't agree with some of the quite nasty comments made to certain people on here, just because their beliefs differ from the majority. Everyone believes in something, whether it's God, Allah, Science, Medicine or Themselves etc. Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to slate people because you think they are in the wrong. We may not agree with others decisions but they have the right to make them and we should respect them for that.

 

[libbylou]

I don't agree with some of the quite nasty comments made to certain people on here, just because their beliefs differ from the majority. Everyone believes in something, whether it's God, Allah, Science, Medicine or Themselves etc. Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to slate people because you think they are in the wrong. We may not agree with others decisions but they have the right to make them and we should respect them for that.

Respectfully disagree. I think that any adult has the right to make choices regarding themselves absolutely, but I do not agree that an adult should be able to decline treatment for a child when we're talking about life vs. death.
I am in no way saying that I think any JW parent does not love their child as much as the next person or that they wouldn't struggle with the decision, but I do not think that they should have the right to decline a blood transfusion when their child will die without it.

 

[BrokenfoREVer]

Respectfully disagree. I think that any adult has the right to make choices regarding themselves absolutely, but I do not agree that an adult should be able to decline treatment for a child when we're talking about life vs. death.
I am in no way saying that I think any JW parent does not love their child as much as the next person or that they wouldn't struggle with the decision, but I do not think that they should have the right to decline a blood transfusion when their child will die without it.

I do totally agree with this, an adult shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to let a child die, for religious beliefs the child might not even understand.

But if you took that to the Nth degree... where would it end? As parents we take responsibility for our children until they are old enough to understand & make choices for themselves. I don't think you can pick & choose between what rights a parent has to make choices for a child.

I 150% agree that it should not be upto a parent if I child dies or not, if that child can be saved. I have some pretty strong opinions about that, none of which are suitible for here, but you can't just remove certain resposiblities from a parent, just cos you think they might be making the wrong choices for their children.