Active Now

Shuhak
Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » What are your views on jehovah's witnesses stance on blood?

What are your views on jehovah's witnesses stance on blood?


Posted - June 8, 2018

Responses


  • 135
    A fair point
      June 8, 2018 12:41 PM MDT
    1

  • 44649
    I don't care one way or the other...But I have a question for you. Why are you using this site as a platform to bash an entire religion and culture? (not cult). Who's next on your list? Jews? This post was edited by Element 99 at June 15, 2018 7:35 AM MDT
      June 8, 2018 1:03 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Interestingly enough, there is a series on cable on cults; and at least one of the episodes was on the JW's.
      June 8, 2018 6:01 PM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Yes, good entertainment for haters. Christians have always been spoken against. Some believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+24%3A5%2C14%3B28%3A22&version=NLT
    Acts 24:5  We have found this man to be a troublemaker who is constantly stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the cult known as the Nazarenes.
    Acts 24:14 “But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets.
    Acts 28:22 But we want to hear what you believe, for the only thing we know about this movement is that it is denounced everywhere.”
      June 14, 2018 12:18 PM MDT
    1

  • 135
    I am not bias as to which religion I pull up about what I see as downright stupidity, if someone makes a bs comment then I will counter it but in this case it is being asked simply because a jw tried to say that bloodless surgery was safer when I had commented on the fact that people had died because of this ban (but as you put in the 'not cult' I am sure you read it anyway)
    If you do not care 'one way or another' that this practice has killed many thousands and continues to kill today, then that says as much about you as it does about the Governing Body of the jws
      June 8, 2018 6:31 PM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Regardless of your baseless estimation by your Dr. Muramoto, no one was killed directly by not having a blood transfusion although many have died from injuries sustained. How many have blood transfusions killed, not killed by injuries themselves but actually been killed by blood transfusions?
    Did Dr. Muramoto give you those numbers?

      June 14, 2018 12:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 2706
    Good point and the Jews have been under attack pretty much since their beginning so it's just a matter of time for that to start here. :)
      June 15, 2018 7:34 AM MDT
    0

  • 11151
    Maybe if God didn't  want humans to have blood transfusions he wouldn't of giving us such incredible brains that we could use to figure out ways to save precious life's  Cheers and happy weekend!
      June 8, 2018 6:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Like the safer bloodless alternatives?
      June 17, 2018 8:46 AM MDT
    1

  • 135
    Cheers Nanoose, seems that some may not have been near the front of the queue when the brains were being handed out or perhaps it comes from having them washed too often.
      June 8, 2018 6:20 PM MDT
    0

  • 7795
    Jehovah's Witnesses stand on blood? YUCK!!!!!
      June 8, 2018 7:29 PM MDT
    1

  • 13395
    What does the scriptures actually say about using blood anyway?  Is that a commandment sort of thing that makes it such a big deal or is it just a 'caution/advisory' kind of message?  This post was edited by Kittigate at June 9, 2018 12:35 AM MDT
      June 9, 2018 12:08 AM MDT
    0

  • 3463
    They actually have bent the rules in some cases when it comes to blood and excepting organs making it a conscious decision for the ones who are in need.
    Due to so many leaving because they see thru the BS that the JWs are dishing out, they have bent the rules on several issues to keep people from leaving. 
    It's all handed down by the governing body and none of it is by scripture.
      June 10, 2018 12:40 PM MDT
    3

  • 2706
    To be clear, I don't agree with many of the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah Witness church/religion. But I gotta say, that movie you posted is near 25 years old. Do you know what their present-day (2018) stance is on blood transfusions? 
      June 11, 2018 8:17 AM MDT
    1

  • 2657
      June 13, 2018 4:58 PM MDT
    1

  • 2706
    Hey, thanks for the information. I've always been a fan of gaining knowledge but I've never been a fan of using outdated information and misinformation. Some seem to use this outdated info and misinformation to beat a dead horse. Again, thanks. :)
      June 14, 2018 9:26 AM MDT
    2

  • 2657

    For some people, that would be a legitimate question as most people are ignorant to bloodless surgery and risk of transfusion, but for others, just soliciting support for their jabs at JW's.
    Dr. Muramoto's supposed conservative estimates is nothing but sensationalism and exaggerations. No mention of the dangers of blood transfusions and the safer alternatives in most situations.

    What is sad is the number of people who have lost loved ones to blood transfusions and then file suit because they say they were not informed of the risk.

    Don't know where to start as most seem to be oblivious to the past blunders and present risk and future unknowns of the blood supply.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/blood-management-bloodless-medicine-transfusions/395054/


    Some of the most vocal advocates for widespread blood-management programs, Nunes says, are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who number roughly 8 million worldwide. A core part of their faith is the refusal of blood transfusions, based on the Biblical commandment to “abstain from blood,” which they interpret to include both ingesting blood (e.g. eating meat with blood in it) and receiving it intravenously. In the past few decades, he says, Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed extensive medical-outreach programs to raise awareness of surgical techniques that align with their religious beliefs.

    Nunes says he has interacted with Witnesses extensively over the years through his work with AABB, inviting church representatives to address AABB members at workshops and seminars.

    “As a group of patients,” Nunes says, “Jehovah’s Witnesses are very well informed ... The way they have been able to organize and educate their community, and then to work with the medical community to make sure they know how to care for them, is really very impressive.”

    “It really is a model for how a patient population with unique needs can really get serious about helping medical professionals meet them,” he adds

     

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931262/

    Does switching product affect safety of treatment?

    [...SIPPET results also pose a dilemma for clinicians who are hesitant to return to pdFVIII because of the history of prior blood-borne infectious epidemics or the potential for new ones. Though current virucidal techniques to date have successfully mitigated the risk of emerging viruses (e.g. West Nile 46 and Zika 47virus), the risk posed by prions 48 and other unidentified infectious agents remains unknown. Preliminary data also suggest that EHL products may fare better for ITI , both for those who fail with rFVIII and as first-line therapy 2223.

    In conclusion, clinicians face a litany of challenging choices for factor replacement. They are tasked with prioritizing convenience, cost, compliance, and safety without definitive ability to predict immune or product pharmacokinetic responses. Though it is tempting to “move backwards” to pdFVIII based upon SIPPET and improved viral inactivation techniques, the potential of a novel blood-borne pathogen epidemic should engender caution....]

    AIDS IN HEMOPHILIA—THE DARK DAYS


    [...It seemed that hemophilia treatment had never been better. All of this changed when AIDS made its way into the blood supply. AIDS was first described in December 1981 in a paper by Gottlieb and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine (2). The first description of AIDS in hemophilia appeared about six months later in the Center for Disease Control's Medical and Morbidity Weekly Report (3). The CDC report provided strong evidence that AIDS was spread by blood. Altogether, almost 5000 hemophiliacs were to become infected with HIV before concentrates were rendered safe, and more than 4000 of the estimated 10,000 hemophiliacs in the US would eventually die of AIDS (Fig. 1). At my center, there were more than 135 deaths due to AIDS before effective treatments were developed...]

     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558319/

    Canadian Red Cross apologises for distributing HIV infected blood

     
     

     NEW ZEALAND

    'Bad blood' sufferers seek redress

    30 Jun, 2000 3:24pm

     

    [At least 18 people have died after contracting hepatitis C from blood transfusions in New Zealand hospitals, but lawyers say deaths are hard to trace and the number could be much higher.

    More than 600 have been infected with the so-called bad blood.

    ...

    But testing did not start until July 1992 (350,000 transfusions later) under then minister Simon Upton, who had resisted calls to resign over the issue. Two years later Mr Upton's successor in the portfolio, Jenny Shipley, ordered an inquiry to find those 350,000 patients, but said at the time that the issue of compensation was between any found to be infected and the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation....]

     
    The tragic history of AIDS in the hemophilia population, 1982– 1984
     
     
    https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/16/us/hemophilia-and-aids-silent-suffering.html 
     
    www.nytimes.com
    Hit harder by AIDS than perhaps any other group, the nation's 15,000 hemophiliacs have been racked by anguish, confusion and anger, and forced to confront a threat that is taking the lives of many and scarring the emotions of many more. As of last week, 652 hemophiliacs had developed AIDS and 386 ...





    n
     
    n
     
    n

    •  
    • Because a blood transfusion can have complications, blood-management proponents argue that avoiding the practice altogether is in patients’ best interest. Even if the blood is the right type, for example, a patient can have an allergic reaction to the blood itself. Multiple transfusions can cause an overload of iron in the body, damaging the liver or heart. In very rare cases, transfusion can also cause graft-versus-host disease, a condition where white blood cells in the new blood attack the bone marrow. So, they’re asking: If doctors can avoid a transfusion, why wouldn’t they? 
    • In 1984, the HIV virus was identified; in 1989, the Hepatitis C virus. As major infectious threats to the national blood supply became more prevalent, the medical field took a closer look at how it was handling blood.
    • ...
    • “As a group of patients,” Nunes says, “Jehovah’s Witnesses are very well informed ... The way they have been able to organize and educate their community, and then to work with the medical community to make sure they know how to care for them, is really very impressive.”
    •  
    By HENA DANIELS CBS NEWS February 17, 2016, 5:10 PM

    Doctors explore benefits of "bloodless" surgery


    Some research supports the use of bloodless surgery, too. A 2012 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions after cardiac surgery are at no greater risk than people who had transfusions.

    The research also found that Witnesses who underwent bloodless surgeries spent less time in the intensive care unit and less time in the hospital when compared to patients who had transfusions. They also had a higher survival rate at 95 percent, compared to the other group at 89 percent.



      June 13, 2018 5:46 AM MDT
    1