im confused would i take blood if i was about to die and had no other alternative treatment well to me thats allways been a hard one one to answer and people have allways hated witnesses for refusing it or not giving blood to there own kids.You see my mothers due in to hospital on tuesday and having a major operation the problem for her is she is inactive as a jw and has no blood card which is upto date what do you think she should do 1.phone elders 2.trust in jehovah and refuse blood.3if it comes to the worst take blood and live.
would you take blood?
by master chief 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Gopher
The WTS teaches that it is "respect for life" which prohibits them from blood transfusions in all situations. But of course they are now allowing many various forms of blood components or fractions, thus confusing the situation.
I don't know that option 1 is a good one, because the JW's keep changing their teachings. Option 2 "trust in Jehovah" -- I think if Jehovah cares at all, he would want us to take the best option available.
Myself I'd go with option 3. I recognize that there are a number of advantages to bloodless surgery. But out of "respect for life", instead of respect for a symbol, if it came down to accept blood or die, I will let the medical professionals do their best to save me.
There came across the news yesterday a rare case where a man had his life saved through a blood transfusion, however he unfortunately acquired HIV/AIDS through tainted blood. He was the only individual to receive blood from this particular donor. The donor was newly infected, thus it slipped through the system. The recipient, although he received tainted blood, said that he was glad that the blood saved his life, although the same blood may later kill him. At least his life was extended, which it would not have been if he had followed some religious rules from the WT Society.
GopherWhy shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
Mark Twain (1835-1910) -
rekless
yes!!!! I would.
-
moman
Equate it with an organ transplant, because thats what it is.
Govern yourself from there. -
outnfree
You ask, "would you take blood?"
My answer, is "Yes, I would."
But then you go on to ask the board's opinion on what your mother should do. In my opinion, your mother should do whatever she feels most comfortable with.
What do the doctors advise? Do they even think there will be a need for a transfusion (many times there isn't)?
Does your mother understand the present view of the Society on blood -- allowing 99% of blood, just not all together? If she were inclined to take the "No blood" stand because of the Society's position on Acts 15:28,29, does she understand how they themselves have compromised that supposed prohibition more and more all the time? If so, is she still willing to risk her life?
Has she taken your feelings into consideration -- your feelings not only about the blood issue, but also how you'd feel if you lost her?
These are some things to consider. I'm sure others can think of more.
I wish your mother peace with her decision and a successful surgery.
outnfree
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts -- John Wooden
-
Solace
I would feel some guilt if I had to accept a transfusion.
How could you not, when youve been told your entire life it is like an ultimate sin.
I dont think I would be able to refuse a transfusion if it meant I would die. I wouldnt want to put my husband and kids through that. That would be like, "forget you guys, As long as Im in the paridise, thats all that matters. See Ya"!
Sorry W.T.S., but I do have a conscious. -
DakotaRed
This is something that should be left between a patient and their doctor, no one else. I always had a big problem denying a transfusion on a scriptural basis, but did do some research into blood. There are in fact, certain circumstances where refusing blood could beneficial, but from a medical standpoint, not a scriptural one.
However, we need to remember that although doctors are human, they have a lot more education than the old guys at the Watchtower.
In answer to your question, if it was the only thing that could save my life, then yes, I would accept it, unhesitatingly. But, if it were some procedure that was not necessarily life threatening, I would wish to discuss that further with my doctor, no one else.
Since my wife is a dub, I do not want her involved in medical decisions, should I be incapacitated. I trust my daughters judgment, there. A non-JW. Of course, I have discussed this with her numerous times and and let her know my feelings. The wife, of course, would deny blood for any reason. My daughter, would make a more informed decision, based on my feelings, not the Watchtowers.
If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
-
proplog2
I not only would take a blood transfusion. I would eat blood soup if it meant my survival.
Mark 7:18,19 "Are you not aware that NOTHING from OUTSIDE that passes into a man can defile him, since it passses, not into his heart but into his intestines and it passes out into the sewer? Thus he declared ALL foods CLEAN.
I don't know how it can get any clearer than that. The biggest blasphemy against Jehovah is getting the people that bear his name to act like lunatics.
-
moman
pro, very well put!
-
Ivor Hope
I think I would seriously consider it - not from the standpoint that the WTS condem it, but rather whether it was absolutely necessary.
Whilst I am convinced it can be a life saver in many situations, it is still not the ideal solution. There can be complications caused by trandfusions. It can transfuse serious disease along with the blood, such as Aids etc. So it is still a difficult decision to make.
The great thing is that I can now make that decision based on FACTS and not the tradition, superstition or fear of a man made organisation.
The following may be of interest:
Man Gets HIV From Donated Blood
.c The Associated PressSAN ANTONIO (AP) - A Texas man has become the first American infected with the AIDS virus from donated blood since the nation's blood banks implemented rigorous new HIV-screening technology three years ago.
David Autrey, a 51-year-old ranch hand from Chilton, was infected with human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, from blood donated at San Antonio's South Texas Blood and Tissue Center.
Transmission of the virus occurred during a blood transfusion Autrey received as part of an emergency heart bypass surgery in August 2000 at Scott & White Hospital in Temple, officials said.
``I feel great sympathy for Mr. Autrey,'' Dr. Norman Kalmin, president and CEO of the South Texas Blood and Tissue Center, said Friday. ``We've been devastated by the news.''
Although the testing process now in use by blood banks is highly sophisticated, it is still considered experimental and can fail to detect the virus in blood from donors who gave blood soon after being exposed to HIV, said Dr. Michael Busch, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco and an executive with Blood Centers of the Pacific.
The tainted blood in Texas came from a man who was a regular donor at the San Antonio blood bank and who had donated four times during 2000, Kalmin said.
When the man donated in December 2000, his blood tested positive for HIV in tests done at the blood bank. Blood-bank workers went through previous donations from the man and tried to recover any blood products that hadn't been used.
``The explanation is that the (donor) was recently exposed,'' Kalmin said. ``It hadn't had the opportunity to multiply to levels that were detectable'' in the automated testing.
Experts say the chance of getting HIV from donated blood is one in 2 million to 3 million transfusions, and they stress that the nation's blood supply remains very safe.