Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

If a regular old whole blood transfusion were absolutely the only way to save your child's life, would Jehovah?

's Witnesses rather their child die than to receive a regular WHOLE BLOOD transfusion, as in the case of an emergency situation where extreme blood loss has taken place due to some trauma.

No fair dodging the question by saying, "Well, such a situation will never happen. Back in the 1950s there was not so many alternatives. What did JWs do back then?

No fair saying that blood transfusions will kill you because that is simply not true. Besides that is ignoring the question.

On e again, the question is, would a JW RATHER their child die THAN accept a WHOLE BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

Or as in the case of some under developed nations who do not yet have the DVvances in bloodless surgery and the ONLY WAY TO SAVE YOUR CHILD IS TO ACCEPT A WHOLE BLOOD TRANSFUSION, Geez, I don't know how to make it any clearere for you guys.

Please do not write that it would be a better chance of survival with nonblood procedures. The Watchower society has already been caught misrepresenting medical facts regarding blood in the article written by Baylor University. See JWS and the Tort of Misrepresentation in a Baylor University magazine.

So, please, don't answer with put-downs of blood transfusions from a medical perspective. This is a religious question. I will delete anything that suggests that blood transfusions do not save lives. They do. It is a fact.

Therefore, from a religious standpoint ONLY, would you Rather your child die than break God's command to not eat blood?

This is a personal question to Jehovah's Witnesses. So answer from your heart.

5 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I appreciate your question because it gets to the heart of the matter: either I disobey God or I obey God. Either I do a thing (in this case the “thing” is a blood transfusion) or I obey God and "allow" my child to die. And just to restate it for purposes of clarification, God’s command at Acts is to ABSTAIN from blood. It doesn’t say “don’t eat it” – it says abstain. It is, therefore, disingenuous to try and redefine this word.

    Despite the fact that rarely is this either/or scenario a reality, I will deal with it as you have requested. And I will deal with it from a religious standpoint because, quite frankly, that is what it is for Jehovah's Witnesses – a religious position. I find it telling, however, that this scenario is always involving a child rather than a husband, wife, mother or father. Why a child? Because when a child is involved, it stirs the emotions and people respond with a knee-jerk reaction. After all, a parent who does not do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING to save his child is despicable in the eyes of most.

    When all the quibbling, artful contriving, qualifying, redefining, and medical discussions are set aside, we are left with this bare fact: either I obey Jehovah God or I disobey him to save my own skin. So the real dilemma here is which is more important: my life (or my child’s life) or Jehovah’s law? This is a mirror image of the scenario in which Job found himself: Satan said that when push came to shove and Job’s life was on the line, he would turn his back on Jehovah to save his skin. This is the slanderous charge; this is the challenge; this is the issue: will humans who claim to worship Jehovah God continue to do so even when it involves their very lives or will they disobey in order to save their own skin – or to save their child’s skin? And every single time this question comes up – the slanderous charge is being repeated by man – skin in behalf of skin and everything a man has he will give to save his own life! Job 2:4

    Let’s rearrange for a moment: suppose someone broke into my house, snatched my child up and told me he would positively kill my baby unless I had sexual relations right then and there with my dog. Would I have sex with the dog or would I let my baby die? There’s an either/or scenario for you. It involves a helpless child and it involves breaking another command of God – no sex with animals.

    My answer is from the heart and is based on God’s word the Bible and my answer is - NO. I will not disobey Jehovah God’s law on the sanctity of blood in order to save my life or anyone else’s life. To suggest that an emergency allows us to disobey a direct command from God is to say: “Jehovah, I love you and everything, but if my baby is about to die, I’ll just have to break your law. I’m sure you’ll understand.” This is foolishness at the very least of it – and suicidal at the very worst of it. Just as Jesus asked: what good is it to save your life and lose your soul? Your question is designed to elicit that knee-jerk reaction but the answer is yes, I would rather the child die than break God's law. But that should be the answer of any person who is truly a worshiper of God.

    Don't you get it? That's the whole issue before mankind - will we obey God no matter what! No matter what! If Jesus refused to turn stone into bread (Luke 4:3-4) because it would violate God's will regarding the misuse of divine power, how much more so would I refuse a blood transfusion because it would violate God's express law concerning the sanctity of blood!

    Hannah J Paul

  • NMB
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    "I will delete anything that suggests that blood transfusions do not save lives. They do. It is a fact."

    Explain the case of Bethany Hughes then. She received several transfusions until her doctors decided that they were not helping.

    There is no way of knowing for sure that blood will save a live. I have seen people die while still receiving blood.

    Didn't save them.

    "rather their child die than to receive a regular WHOLE BLOOD transfusion"

    Of course we would not want our child to die, that's why we take them to doctors and hospitals in the first place.

    I would not give permission for a blood transfusion for my child under any circumstance as such would violate what is clearly written in God's word the Bible, to abstain from.....blood.

    "The Watchower society has already been caught misrepresenting medical facts regarding blood in the article written by Baylor University. See JWS and the Tort of Misrepresentation in a Baylor University magazine."

    The article you mention is ONE person's OPINION. Talk about misrepresenting something.

  • lillie
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    When we get baptised and dedicate our lives to Jehovah God.

    We do it with our eyes opened. We have diligently studied the bible and are fully aware of what is required of us if we want to be acceptable to God. And we are also fully aware of what is unacceptable.

    We live for Jehovah God. We have the utmost faith and trust in our Heavenly Father.

    We are very much aware of Jehovah's stand on blood. - Blood is sacred; who we are is in the blood; it is our life force.

    Jehovah God clearly sets out in His Holy Word, the Bible instructions on the use of blood.Jehovah God views blood as sacred - not just a commodity to be bought and sold. As Jehovah's Witnesses we too understand the sanctity of blood.

    Children are a gift from God and Jehovahs Witnesses love their children but they also love Jehovah God and know that Jehovah only wants the best for all His 'children'.

    If the situation is really that serious, can the doctor guarantee that the patient will not die if he is given blood? No he cant. But Jehovah God does guarantee a resurrection for His faithful ones.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No they wouldn't I think, if god says it's wrong he would never put you in a situation where it is the only solution, so there must be another way. I'm guessing that would be their logic.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.