Trying to put a nasty spin on things are we? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses closely follow Bible principals. One of those principals is ''abstain from blood''. It's pretty straightforward. So, simply put, yes. We would refuse blood transfusians for an infant. Now, we JW's aren't against all medical treatment. If that was the case I would be dead. I have some pretty bad health problems myself.The only medical treatment we would avoid would be a blood transfusian.Actually, because of Jehovah's Witnesses, doctors have developed better alternatives to blood transfusians. Blood transfusians aren't the best answer, and all doctors agree that it's a last resort because, really, they just aren't 100% fool-proof, and can end up causing more problems. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me or go to watchtower.org, the official website for Jehovah's Witnesses.A question for Jehovah's Witnesses
Oh, now that I re-read your question I see that you asked do we have the right. Actually, we do. JW's have one a good number of supereme court cases on the matter. I should know. I did my National History Day project on Supreme Court Cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses ;)
[QUOTE=''blankshore'']Trying to put a nasty spin on things are we? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses closely follow Bible principals. One of those principals is ''abstain from blood''. It's pretty straightforward. So, simply put, yes. We would refuse blood transfusians for an infant. Now, we JW's aren't against all medical treatment. If that was the case I would be dead. I have some pretty bad health problems myself.The only medical treatment we would avoid would be a blood transfusian.Actually, because of Jehovah's Witnesses, doctors have developed better alternatives to blood transfusians. Blood transfusians aren't the best answer, and all doctors agree that it's a last resort because, really, they just aren't 100% fool-proof, and can end up causing more problems. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me or go to watchtower.org, the official website for Jehovah's Witnesses.[/QUOTE] A nasty spin? I spun nothing. I simply asked a straight forward question using non derogatory language. The reason I ask this is because the infant has a right to live but does not possess the ability to choose to live by JW's belief's, forcing the choice to live or die into somebody elses hand.
Umm doesnt anyone have the right to refuse? I mean whats the big deal? Why is abstain from blood a principle that Jehovas hold? What is the point of that, I dont think god ever said that, but if he did, then ok.
[QUOTE=''MotherSuperior''][QUOTE=''blankshore'']Trying to put a nasty spin on things are we? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses closely follow Bible principals. One of those principals is ''abstain from blood''. It's pretty straightforward. So, simply put, yes. We would refuse blood transfusians for an infant. Now, we JW's aren't against all medical treatment. If that was the case I would be dead. I have some pretty bad health problems myself.The only medical treatment we would avoid would be a blood transfusian.Actually, because of Jehovah's Witnesses, doctors have developed better alternatives to blood transfusians. Blood transfusians aren't the best answer, and all doctors agree that it's a last resort because, really, they just aren't 100% fool-proof, and can end up causing more problems. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me or go to watchtower.org, the official website for Jehovah's Witnesses.[/QUOTE] A nasty spin? I spun nothing. I simply asked a straight forward question using non derogatory language. The reason I ask this is because the infant has a right to live but does not possess the ability to choose to live by JW's belief's, forcing the choice to live or die into somebody elses hand.[/QUOTE]The parent has the right to decide medical treatment for their infants anyway. . .
[QUOTE=''MotherSuperior''][QUOTE=''blankshore'']Trying to put a nasty spin on things are we? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses closely follow Bible principals. One of those principals is ''abstain from blood''. It's pretty straightforward. So, simply put, yes. We would refuse blood transfusians for an infant. Now, we JW's aren't against all medical treatment. If that was the case I would be dead. I have some pretty bad health problems myself.The only medical treatment we would avoid would be a blood transfusian.Actually, because of Jehovah's Witnesses, doctors have developed better alternatives to blood transfusians. Blood transfusians aren't the best answer, and all doctors agree that it's a last resort because, really, they just aren't 100% fool-proof, and can end up causing more problems. If you have any more questions, feel free to PM me or go to watchtower.org, the official website for Jehovah's Witnesses.[/QUOTE] A nasty spin? I spun nothing. I simply asked a straight forward question using non derogatory language. The reason I ask this is because the infant has a right to live but does not possess the ability to choose to live by JW's belief's.[/QUOTE]Okay. I think your sig freaked me out :PBut really, an infant can't choose any kind of medical treatment. It doesn't have the ability to refuse getting booster shots or anything like that. Every parent, regardless of their religion has to make medical desitions for their infant. There's a lot of hospitals now that specialize in bloodless surgery. Just last week a family friend of mine had their 8 month old baby girl go to a bloodless hospital to have heart surgery. And it worked out fine. It's really amazing what they can do with technology these days. Blood Transfusians actually aren't as big of a deal as they used to be.
[QUOTE=''SegaGenesisfan'']Umm doesnt anyone have the right to refuse? I mean whats the big deal? Why is abstain from blood a principle that Jehovas hold? What is the point of that, I dont think god ever said that, but if he did, then ok.[/QUOTE]
Yes, everyone has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. Jehova's Witnesses just refuse them more commonly than others. There are alternative ways to get treatment other than accept blood, as blankshore has well stated, and MotherSuperior, whether you like to admit it or not, your OP does sound like you tried to put Jehova's Witnesses in a bad light, suggesting that they rather uphold their believes than let their sick children live.
Yes, legally they can refuse their children treatment. I've heard of cases where a mother tried to stop her 16 year old son from getting a blood transfusion even though he was begging for it. In that case I believe the doctor took the child's side though.
[QUOTE=''JustPlainLucas''][QUOTE=''SegaGenesisfan'']Umm doesnt anyone have the right to refuse? I mean whats the big deal? Why is abstain from blood a principle that Jehovas hold? What is the point of that, I dont think god ever said that, but if he did, then ok.[/QUOTE]
Yes, everyone has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. Jehova's Witnesses just refuse them more commonly than others. There are alternative ways to get treatment other than accept blood, as blankshore has well stated, and MotherSuperior, whether you like to admit it or not, your OP does sound like you tried to put Jehova's Witnesses in a bad light, suggesting that they rather uphold their believes than let their sick children live. [/QUOTE]
This was not my intent. I just wanted the question to be simple and straight-forward.
[QUOTE=''SegaGenesisfan'']Umm doesnt anyone have the right to refuse? I mean whats the big deal? Why is abstain from blood a principle that Jehovas hold? What is the point of that, I dont think god ever said that, but if he did, then ok.[/QUOTE]Yeah, anyone can refuse. Not just Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood. We just refuse because in Acts chapter 9 verse 20 God said ''abstain from blood''.
A Jehovah's Witness woke me up this morning..
:x
[QUOTE=''Amnesiac23'']Yes, legally they can refuse their children treatment. I've heard of cases where a mother tried to stop her 16 year old son from getting a blood transfusion even though he was begging for it. In that case I believe the doctor took the child's side though. [/QUOTE]Yeah, in that case it's the child's choice because he's old enough to make his decisions. That's kind of a vague story, so I'm not sure that's actually true but you're right. In that case it's the child's choice.
[QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23'']Yes, legally they can refuse their children treatment. I've heard of cases where a mother tried to stop her 16 year old son from getting a blood transfusion even though he was begging for it. In that case I believe the doctor took the child's side though. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, in that case it's the child's choice because he's old enough to make his decisions. That's kind of a vague story, so I'm not sure that's actually true but you're right. In that case it's the child's choice.[/QUOTE]
Well, it was on Discovery Health, so I'm pretty sure it's true. That's about all I remember from it though.
[QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23'']Yes, legally they can refuse their children treatment. I've heard of cases where a mother tried to stop her 16 year old son from getting a blood transfusion even though he was begging for it. In that case I believe the doctor took the child's side though. [/QUOTE]Yeah, in that case it's the child's choice because he's old enough to make his decisions. That's kind of a vague story, so I'm not sure that's actually true but you're right. In that case it's the child's choice.[/QUOTE] Well, it was on Discovery Health, so I'm pretty sure it's true. That's about all I remember from it though. [/QUOTE]I'll trust you on this one since you'rea radiohead fan ;)It's a sign of intelligence.
[QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore'']
Yeah, in that case it's the child's choice because he's old enough to make his decisions. That's kind of a vague story, so I'm not sure that's actually true but you're right. In that case it's the child's choice.
[/QUOTE] Well, it was on Discovery Health, so I'm pretty sure it's true. That's about all I remember from it though. [/QUOTE]
I'll trust you on this one since you'rea radiohead fan ;)
It's a sign of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
lol why thank you! :P Always nice to see fellow Radiohead fans around GS.
[QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore''][/QUOTE] lol why thank you! :P Always nice to see fellow Radiohead fans around GS. [/QUOTE]Yeah. Dude my screen name is a line from Reckoner! Thought you'd pick up on that...
[QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore'']
[QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore'']
[/QUOTE] lol why thank you! :P Always nice to see fellow Radiohead fans around GS. [/QUOTE]
Yeah. Dude my screen name is a line from Reckoner! Thought you'd pick up on that...[/QUOTE]
lol now that you mention it...
You'll have to forgive me. I'm pretty tired tonight, so my minds half gone. :P
[QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''][QUOTE=''blankshore''][QUOTE=''Amnesiac23''] lol why thank you! :P Always nice to see fellow Radiohead fans around GS. [/QUOTE]Yeah. Dude my screen name is a line from Reckoner! Thought you'd pick up on that...[/QUOTE] lol now that you mention it... You'll have to forgive me. I'm pretty tired tonight, so my minds half gone. :P [/QUOTE]Yeah. I'm not here. This isn't really happening.8)Whoa! This got off topic. Can we end this thread, please? Before it starts getting offensive? It went so well, let's end it on a good note.
Children in the congregation can get a ''No Blood'' card that explains their beliefs on blood transfusions. So, yes, the parent has the right to decide whether to give their child, no matter how young, a blood transfusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment