What's wrong in refusing a blood transfusion if you supposedly really "need" it?

Question

So in asking an honest question here are a few articles and a video to help everyone understand why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and giving blood. I myself am a Witness.

How Can Blood Save Your Life?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm…

How Can Blood Save Your Life?
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm…
Quality Alternatives to Transfusion

How Can Blood Save Your Life? - A P P E N D I X
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm…
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES THE SURGICAL/ETHICAL CHALLENGE

BLOOD: WHOSE CHOICE AND WHOSE CONSCIENCE?
by J. Lowell Dixon, M.D.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm…

No Blood—Medicine Meets the Challenge
http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article…

Additional Details

Why risk your life to have "life saving blood" to save your life? Many die from just having a transfusion, not from refusing it. And If it ever came down to where choosing blood or refusing blood I would rather refuse blood because I would be obeying God's command in abstaining from blood. Even if I did die from not having a transfusion I know I will be resurrected in the new system. Also saying no to a transfusion is a conscious weighing matter. Would refusing blood make Jehovah happy or would it make him unhappy when receiveing blood? That is the question you should be asking yourselves! But here's the answer it makes Jehovah happy when you obey his command!

Reasoning from the Scriptures
Blood
Blood Transfusions
Does the Bible's prohibition include human blood?

YES, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to "KEEP ABSTAINING FROM......BLOOD." It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating "any sort of blood.") Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: "The indirect upon 'blood' we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood."-----The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

(Continued from the Reasoning from the Scriptures book)

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the Command to "Keep abstaining from.....blood"? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

2007 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
published 2007
Latvia
Christian Faith put to the test
The Blood issue has also tested the integrity of some. On September 6, 1996, Yelena Godlevskaya, a 17 year old girl who was hit by a car, suffered multiple fractures to the pelvis. Spiritually mature, Yelena had determined in her heart to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:29) Back then, most doctors in Latvia were unfamiliar with nonblood techniques, so the attending doctors refused to preform corrective surgery. Then about a week later, two doctors cruelly forced a blood transfusion on Yelena late one night, and she died.

He just fell asleep in death and when Jehovah resurrects the dead he too will be resurrected for obeying Jehovah's command from abstaining from blood and obeying him rather than man.

To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

Well if I died for not having a transfusion I know I will be resurrected into the new system for obeying Jehovah's command. Its a conscious weighing matter and I love the provision that Jehovah put forth for us to learn and obey from him.

Thank you Purple Triangle and Lover of Jehovah and Jesus for chiming in! :)

Bloodless Surgery
http://www.watchtower.org/e/19980822/art…
Its Benefits Gain Recognition

Jehovahs witnessess -DO not just watch their kids die!?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…

Very well put Sugarbee! Thanks Sisters for putting in your two-bits. Yes its definitley a hot debate topic.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

What a great question! I would never accept a blood transfusion simply from the fact that it is against Gods law, and from the other reasons stated here too. This is what I have understood from the bible for many years even though it was not something the Lutheran church taught. There have been 2 times in my life where I have refused blood. 1989 - ectopic pregnancy w/internal hemorrhaging, ( I was not a witness back then ) and 2005 - heart cath. - blood loss from femoral artery when clot broke loose... The Dr.'s thought I was nuts. There ARE alternatives and they work just as good or better and faster without the complications & breaking Jehovah's law. I'm still here. Just to add to the list of blood builders, cranberry juice is also VERY helpful.

Source(s):

A Witness of Jehovah with personal experience and also the desire to keep His laws.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Thanks Sisters and Brother.

Answer 2

The abstention for blood is not only for dietary reasons. If the prohibition is only for eating, that means a Christian can literally take a bath in a pool of blood, or the Egpytians at old times are right in “blood shedding” to cure their illnesses, etc. The Bible only tells us the proper use of blood, and one of those is for cleansing and forgiveness of sins, which was done by Jesus once and for all. Heb 9,10.

An egg white and egg yolk are still eggs. JWs believe that white blood cells and red blood cells, the major components of blood are still blood. But if you fractionalize those cells into each individual components, it is a personal decision for JWs whether to avoid those or not. Others reason that a fraction of the red/white blood cells are now proteins, or water, and proteins and water are not blood anymore so they can take it. Others feel that fractions of let's say red blood cells maybe is still blood or came from blood, so they don't take it. It is a personal decision whether to accept those fractionalized component.

The Bible doesn’t say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, nor abstain from blood bathing but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.

The early Christians ate meat which are properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn’t removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.

Fornication is a sin, and if one committed it, that person needs sincere and true repentance and God will forgive him.

Do you think God will forgive you if you committed fornication and you are saying that fornication is NOT A SIN? And that it is okay to COMMIT FORNICATION when your life is in danger?

Now, if you don’t abstain from blood, and but you truly repented and admitted that it is a sin, then God will forgive you. But if you say that having blood transfusion is NOT A SIN, nor repented, do you think God will forgive you?

When you disobey God by having fornication or you ignore to “abstain from blood” and you WILLFULLY PRACTICE those sins, do you think you will be forgiven?

Heb 10:26-27 state “For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition”

Jesus our greatest exampler remained OBEDIENT to God until his earthly death.


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

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 the woman’s 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 in your body if the there is NO LOSS in life.
People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).

Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. … might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws …

Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don’t? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.



If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?

Answer 3

This topic is gonna be a "hot debate"
BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS do not save lives!
My grandmothers 2nd husband had one and it KILLED him!

There are alternatives to blood......hespan, dextran, ringers lactate, just to name a few. I've had surgeries and refused blood, and guess what? I'm here! and I thank God....the One who I put my trust in.

p.s and for the little boy who died in Seattle......that was the doctors fault, because I guarantee that the parents sought out every possible alternative to save their child's life. A lot of people believe that JW's just stand around and watch and wait for their loved ones to die.....that is the farthest thing from the truth! Doctors are not GOD, but a lot of them think they are........I blame the doctors for not caring enough to work with the parents.

Answer 4

During a blood transfusion, the blood is not going into your mouth. Your not drinking it or eating it. Jesus gave His blood for you on the cross. So, if you have Jesus as your Savior, are you 'abstaining' from blood then????

Source(s):

I am a Christian, by the way.

Answer 5

Blood is very sacred to God. Wasn't it the pouring out of Jesus blood that we have forgiveness of sins? (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; 1 John 1:7) Are we not showing disrespect for Jesus life blood, if we do not treat blood as sacred?

Blood is not to be used and re-used. Once it leaves the body it is to be disposed of. (Lev. 17:11-13)

As Acts 15: 29 states "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!"

It is a question of is our life more important than obeying God's laws? Do we not have faith that if we should die, that he will not remember us and resurrect us?

Every human has the right to refuse certain medical treatment, even if Doctors advise against it. If someone has cancer, they can refuse chemotherapy, the Doctors will advise them that they could die without it, but it is still their choice, it is their body, and they have the right to say what will go into their body, whether it is taken from the mouth or given threw the veins.

Answer 6

Can anyone tell me how many people die from taking blood? I know a lot do from complications like contacting syphilis, t-cell leukemia,hepatitus B/C, AIDs and others but do you berate them for taking it- No but they are dying more often than any JW dies from not taking blood.

Answer 7

If you're going to die anyway, why not take a chance? Many peole's lives are saved through blood transfusions.
People have misinterpreted the bible scriptures. Read the whole passages - it refers to eating of the blood from sacrifices, etc. There is no biblical reason not to have a biblical transfusion.
All your quotes are from your religion. Open your mind and explore for yourself.

Answer 8

If it makes you happy to refuse to have a transfusion then that's great for you. God works through many hands and in many ways and to be honest, I think that the blood references in the Bible refer to someone drinking blood like in a ritualistic way. In any event, I truly hope that you're never mangled in a car accident or get shot in the femoral artery (poor Sean Taylor) and bleed out while refusing a transfusion. Good luck with that.

Answer 9

There is nothing wrong with refusing a blood transfusion if you have no reason to live.

The obfuscation of the truth via lengthy straw dog arguments is typical of witnesses. First take a shred of truth, distort it, expand the distortion, expound on the expansion, then call the result truth. Clever.

Answer 10

Eating blood is significantly different than a transfusion. I'd say that refusing anything that can save your live could be considered as suicide.

Answer 11

we rather trust Jehovah God and Jesus Christ with our life then any doctor who is always making mistakes. who would know us better, the doctors or Jehovah God. of course we hate to see a child die or anyone for that matter die. I lost my husband because they had my husband sign a paper while he was high on morphine and gave him blood and three weeks later he was gone. yes he was a Jehovah Witness. but I know I will see him again in the new system. I believe in the resurrection

Answer 12

1. The theological basis of the argument is unsound... The blood spoken of in scripture is clearly DIETARY. The prohibition is on EATING it.
2. The mention in Acts 15:29 is part of the ONE PASSAGE where parts from the law are bound on Gentile Christians. We see elsewhere in the New Testament from Jesus, Paul and others that the WHOLE LAW was set aside, including the dietary laws.

Since the only justification from scripture is an extension of dietary laws which were in fact set aside, the weight which should be placed on them is certainly subject to debate.

Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to give you a load that is too heavy. So here are a few basic rules. 29 Don’t eat food that has been offered to statues of gods. Don’t drink blood. Don’t eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death. And don’t commit sexual sins.
YOU WILL DO WELL TO KEEP AWAY FROM THESE THINGS...

Notice it DOES NOT SAY "YOU MUST..." JUST "YOU WILL DO WELL..."

Paul writes in 1Corinthians 10:25 "Eat ANYTHING that is sold in the meat market. Don’t ask if it’s right or wrong..." This obviously includes:
foods which have been sacrificed to idols
meat from animals which were strangled
blood

Paul's context for the statement in 1Cor. explains that we should not seek to impose our beliefs on someone else's diet... Here I pick up Paul's text again in verse 29, "... Why should my freedom be judged by what someone else thinks? 30 Suppose I give thanks when I eat. Then why should I be blamed for eating food I thank God for?"
''...causing a brother to stumble" from this context is often improperly interpreted and applied.

Answer 13

If you wan to sacrifice your life for a company, that is your business, sacrificing children is a sin you should not be allowed to commit.

Answer 14

While it is a tragedy this young man may die, It would be an even bigger one if he tried to hold onto life in satan's system of things for a short while longer and compromise his beliefs. Jesus died for all that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for them and was raised up. If that which you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also abide in union with the Son and in union with the Father. Furthermore, this is the promised thing that he himself promised us, the life everlasting. In everything and in all circumstances I have learned the secret of both how to be full and how to hunger, both how to have an abundance and how to suffer want. For all things I have the strength by virtue of him who imparts power to me. For he has said: “I will by no means leave you nor by any means forsake you, and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over you. Amen.

Answer 15

This issue will always touch nerves...

but thankfully, many who are NOT Jehovah's Witnesses are starting to realize that NO BLOOD transfusion is the safer way to go and a lot less risk involved. Thousands of doctors today prefers "no blood transfusion" and I humbly applaud doctors who can save lives without the use of blood. They know now through seminars on NO BLOOD Transfusions that there are other alternatives--- yes, it is a challenge but it is a challenge in medicine they are willing to take because it is not only JWs that are not acceptiong blood...they are others as well.

Answer 16

Not accepting medical attention in any form, at a prospect of some hope of bettering the chances of life, even if there are consequences, is clearly suicide. And in any case, if that medical attention hasn't achieved healthier benefits, at least you were offered a chance. If death occurs after that chance has been taken, then that for sure is God's plan, not your own. You were, at least, offered a chance at an attempt to get be better. Any medical procedure in saving lives is given to us from the power of God. Our intelligence in medical field should be appreiciated by all and is given to us by a higher power.

Answer 17

funny you should ask...TODAY a boy in seattle who was a JW
refused a transfusion and died....

life is about choices and consequences....don't be stupid...

Answer 18

God's prohibition on eating blood was no mere "dietary rule."

That is evident from the fact that in the 11th chapter of Leviticus where God set out numerous dietary regulations as to which animals could and could not be eaten, blood is not even mentioned in that context. Instead, God's law against eating blood is mentioned in the 17th chapter of Leviticus in connection with animal sacrifices.

Furthermore, if an Israelite violated the law by eating or touching an animal, fish, or bird that was considered unclean under the law, they were simply considered unclean themselves until evening. Not so the person who ate blood. They were not merely considered ceremonially unclean until evening—they were to be put to death. God outlawed the eating of blood, not because it was unclean in his eyes, as were certain types of animals, but because blood is holy to Jehovah.

Also, it was indicated to Peter in a vision that God had cleansed what was formally considered to be unclean. So, Peter and the apostles knew that God no longer was imposing the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law upon the Christian congregation.

But in that knowledge, the apostolic decree stated that abstaining from blood was one of the "necessary things" that was still binding upon Christians, even though the numerous dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses were not.

So, to imply that God's law on blood was and is a mere dietary law is wrong.

As for the example Jesus set, we would do well to remember that while Jesus condemned the merciless legalism of the Pharisees, he never compromised God's law. Jesus taught us that obeying God is more important than life itself.

The Son of God laid down the principle that the individual that seeks to save his soul (presumably by compromising their faith) will lose it, but he that loses his soul, for Christ's sake, will gain it. Jesus practiced what he preached, as he gave his very life to comply with God's Will.

Source(s):

References quoted are from 1st century, 20th Century and 21st century anointed Christians that make up the bride of Christ.

Answer 19

Everything is wrong with it. It is CLEARLY ststed in the Bible that NO ONE is supposed to have blood taken in in anyshape or form. Oh well, People will be stubborn i guess.

Answer 20

What is wrong with refusing a blood transfusion....

when Christ died for our sins on the cross he gave us a blood transfusion.....


If God did not want blood transfusions and other medical procedures to occur he would not have created us with interchangeable systems for transplantation and blood transfusion for the purpose of saving some ones life!!


How can a cult "claim" to be the truth when it goes out of its way to deny education, medical and health issues, common sense!!!

How many more will die on the JW altar of ignorance??



where do they get their information regarding ALL these poor souls who have died from receiving a blood transfusion??


If this where the(true) case then the medical community would stop immediately and investigate what was wrong....

false propaganda again...

Answer 21

Because there are complications,People are finding out about and dying from that than the transfusion itself.People who aren't witnesses are going this way also.We have new medical DVD out that we are taught how to be bloodless safely.And we are the only ones that will know and be able to teach everyone.

Source(s):

watchtower.com

Answer 22

There are 306 Commandments that Moses was given. And keeping the blood out was/is one of them. Science in wanting to help people found away to to ID blood types and hopefully get the correct blood in the person. But mistakes can still happen. The question is with today's science do you want to take the risk?
Back 100-200 years ago they thought if they drained blood from people it would make them well again. It dose not.

Answer 23

Bottom line: a young person is dead because of stupidity in religion.

Answer 24

"Many die from just having a transfusion, not from refusing it."

Quite frankly, you are completely incorrect.

What's wrong with having a transfusion? I mean, really, what could possibly be wrong about it? None of the other God cults think the Bible tells them to kill themselves rather than choosing life. But then again, I guess it's just a matter of natural selection.

It sounds like you have been properly brainwashed.