What do Christians have against donating blood?
I'm always reading about Christians letting their kids die because they don't believe in transfusions. Someone told me, they also won't give blood. Where in the bible does this belief come from?
- PETERLv 410 years agoFavorite Answer
“Blood transfusions with banked human blood may do more harm than good for a majority of patients,” says a report from Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. Studies have found that transfused patients have “higher incidences of heart attack, heart failure, stroke and even death” than those who were not transfused. Why? “Nitric oxide in red blood cells begins breaking down almost immediately after red blood cells leave the body.” Nitric oxide is crucial to keeping blood vessels open and thus allowing red cells to ferry oxygen to the body’s tissues. “Millions of patients are apparently receiving transfusions with blood that is impaired in its ability to deliver oxygen,” says the report.
As many as 40 percent of Soviet AIDS victims have contracted the virus through contaminated blood, reports The Toronto Star. Calling the situation “extremely alarming,” Valentin Pokrovsky, head of the Soviet Academy of Medical Sciences, admits: “We have an intolerably high percentage of cases of the AIDS virus being transferred via blood during surgery.” In the southern cities of Elista and Volgograd, AIDS outbreaks have been traced to contaminated needles used in hospitals. At least 81 children have been infected with the virus there.
Nine daily newspapers in the New York City area recently carried an advertisement under the headline “To All Who Received Blood From January 1991 to December 1996 in a New York/New Jersey Hospital.” Although the sponsor of the ad, the New York Blood Center, says that the intent of the ad was to assure anyone who had received a blood transfusion during the early 1990’s that the blood supply was safe, it may have had the opposite effect. Why? No doubt one cause for concern was the ad’s warning: “Recipients of donated blood products during that period may face a potential risk of transfusion-transmitted infections, such as HIV and hepatitis.”
This is just a few of the headlines that have been published in news items
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 interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.
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?
In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?
Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.
Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”
All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.
- MayflowerLv 710 years ago
What's the use of discussing the JW blood transfusion policy.
It is now passe, as the JW are allowed to take blood transfusion since 1998!!!. http://www.watchman.org/jw/bloodbulgaria.htm
....The Bulgarian government, in order to reach an agreement, will now provide civilian service for conscientious objectors to military service (Information Note No. 148, <http://22.214.171.124/eng/E276INFO. 148.html>). The compromise made by the Society is far more noteworthy. The Society agreed, regarding blood transfusions, that “members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association” (Ibid.; emphases added).Source(s): http://www.watchman.org/jw/bloodbulgaria.htm
- AmyLv 610 years ago
This belief is held only by a very small group of Christians. I'm not sure which one, possibly the Jehovah's Witnesses. Most Christians donate both blood and organs.
- ElijahLv 710 years ago
According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23; 1 Chron. 11:18, 19) Because God Himself said that life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before Him, we should recognize that all life comes from and belongs to God. By ‘pouring it out’ on the altar or on the ground, we, in effect, are returning the life to God.
So, according to the scriptural admonition above, the practice of voluntarily donating blood simply to be stored for some future use appears to conflict with the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Mike KLv 710 years ago
Its only the Jehovah Witness sect that is against this. Most of the 2.2 billion Christians have no problem with donating blood,m starting with me.
- Suzette RLv 610 years ago
True Christians follow God's commands concerning Blood.
Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)
Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.
Minucius Felix (third century C.E.): “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.
More children and adults die from GETTING blood than do from rejecting blood and opting for other actions such as using blood fillers which are perfectly safe and acceptable. Most hospitals now use bloodless surgeries because people recover faster and have less complications.
- Bobby JimLv 710 years ago
Never heard THAT one in church.
You are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are not Christian.
There are a few "fringe" churches that adhere to that also, but they are not Christian either, in spite of what they call THEMSELVES.
The teaching that "me me me" cites above was given so that Gentile Believers will not offend Jewish believers. The chuch has no such official stand, other than to not offend weak Believers. The Jews even today do not mix the meat and fluids of animals. They observe dairy days, and meat days separately. But then, Jews are not Christians either.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Acts 15:28-29 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things,
29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions?
To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery?
Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
Have you notice that the fictional character Dracula a vampire use blood to sustain his life ...and is related with the devil...and people hates them??
What is the evil thing they (Vampires) do??
What Does It Mean to Be a Christian?
Jesus said to his followers: “You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you.” (John 15:14) Since Jesus’ teachings affected all aspects of their lives, Christ’s disciples initially referred to their religion as “The Way.” (Acts 9:2) Soon thereafter, “[they] were by divine providence called Christians.” (Acts 11:26) This new name they bore meant that they believed that Jesus was the Son of God, who had transmitted to mankind the will of his heavenly Father. This belief led them to follow a way of life that differed from that of the world around them.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I do have nothing against donating blood. I've done it before. You are talking about the Jehovah witness religion. There is nothing wrong with giving your blood to help others. It's a very good thing.
Judgment say is 13 moths and a few days away from today
May 21, 2011
according to Scripture....there will be nothing but eternal death after that Day, according to Scripture; that Day, Saturday May 21st, 2011, is 7,000 years [to the day] from the Flood of Noah's day, according to Scripture...it is 23 years [to the day] from the start of the Great Tribulation on May 21, 1988, according to Scripture; it is 13,023 years from Creation in 11,013 BC --this Bible Calendar of all history-Creation to Judgment Day, begins in Genesis 5 and 11, according to Scripture.
Christ will come only for His Elected, saved people on Saturday May 21st, 2011, most people will be caught that day by the Thief In The Night [5 times in Scripture], most will be left behind for a period of Hell-on-Earth and eternal death ["the 2nd death"]...but God's Elect will know the timing of Judgment Day [I Thes. 5, Rev 3:3, etc., etc.]
Just as National Israel lasted 2,000 years, so the New Testament era likewise: no one can change nor hold back this Day.
The Bible does not teach:... "of that Day and Hour knoweth no man" [unless you yank this verse, Matt 24:36, out of its context]...Jesus said in the following verse, Matthew 24:37 [part of v. 36] "BUT AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH..." and, even children can see in Genesis 6 & 7 that God gave Noah 120 years advance warning that He was going to destroy the whole Earth with a Flood, giving Noah and his family 120 years in which to build that 450 ft long, 3 story Ark.
The Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ does not know the time of Judgment Day on Saturday May 21st, 2011...Christ is God and is specifically called "eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6 and many other places.
You can learn all that the Bible teaches about the timing of Judgment Day on Saturday May 21st, 2011 at familyradio.com or at ebiblefellowship.com or at bmius.org Especially consider the booklet available there online called "We Are Almost There", or order it free at 800-543-1495 [PST 9-5 weekdays].
Jesus said "Every idle word that man shall speak, he shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment..." in Matt 12:36.
- 10 years ago
That is JW's that do that, not Christians. There are a lot of debates between Christians (of nearly all denominations) and Jehovah Witnesses over this topic.
- 10 years ago
It is not all christians that are against giving blood.it is Jehovah's witness that thinks its prohibited according to scriptures, no meaning to be offensive or critical of them,but i think they interpretation of that scripture is not quite correct,i think the scriptures were speaking of blood sacrifices& the eating of raw food with blood.