Beliefs and blood transfusions
The British press has been following an emotional story about religious belief and patient autonomy. In October Emma Gough gave birth to twins. Complications from the delivery led to bleeding and her doctors said she'd need a blood transfusion to survive. But Gough and her husband are devout Jehovah's Witnesses and she refused the transfusion. She died hours later.
The case has led to a range of reactions in the UK -- from accusations that doctors made mistakes resulting in the complications to disbelief that a mother would choose to forgo treatment in this way. Others are trying to get a better understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs.
Did Gough's doctors do the right thing by not providing the transfusion? Here's what the head of ethics at the British Medical Association told the BBC about situations involving an adult who refuses treatment on religious grounds:
"It's something we just have to live with - the alternative would be to change the law, change the human rights law. It's just too important that we all as individuals are able to make our own decisions."
A hospital in Dublin, Ireland faced a similar situation last year -- and it took the case to court, ultimately being granted the authority to provide treatment. The justice in that case ruled that the interests of the newborn were "paramount" and they superseded that of the mother. Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland called that decision "akin to rape."
-Greg Dahlmann
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I think that, even with newborn children in need of a mother, that the mother should be granted the autonomy to make the choice, even though I feel it is based on a silly belief. In fact, I think that people should be able to refuse *any* treatment, be it a religious decision or otherwise. Now if they're refusing for their children, that's another can of worms...
- by Stroll on Nov 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM | link
I find it interesting that while refusing care leading to certain death is a right--choosing to die to end unbearable suffering (or just 'because') is not. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who prefer 'God' to decide.
- by emily on Nov 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM | link
While we obviously feel for the family, is it not interesting that in each of these type of stories that the journalists can unequivocally state that the patient would have lived it they had blood. I wish there were more people like this on the earth that can tell be 100% for certainty that if I do this or that I will live or die. And that for a certainty that I will NOT get hepatitis, aids or any other number of blood borne disseisees from blood. Plus, if I do get sick afterward, I am sure that they will take care to me and mine for going along with them. No thanks! Not for me and mine.
- by bob on Nov 6, 2007 at 3:07 PM | link
Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, the WatchTower Society began teaching in 1945 that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system. Paul Gilles recent comments during this tragedy in which he compared injecting alcohol into one's veins (give me a break) to drinking alcohol proves that JWs still believe what the WatchTower Society published back in 1951:
"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.
The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED.
In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.
In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.
This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.
The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
- by Jerry Jones on Nov 9, 2007 at 9:54 AM | link
Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.
FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?
2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.
3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.
Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.
None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines
Are there dangers from blood?There are over 500 aspirin deaths in USA yearly.
---
Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness
- by Danny Haszard on Nov 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM | link