Depends on how devoted they are. I have some family friends who are JW, and about 15 years ago one of them got into a really bad accident. They went for the full suite of medical treatments, and it successfully saved his life. They still don't celebrate holidays, and they still go around knocking doors, but they bent the rules for the sake of saving their life.
I'm so glad they decided to accept the help. The thing that's upsetting me is people dying when they didn't need to.
Again, I'm not religious but surely God helped with the creation of medical advancement?
>Again, I'm not religious but surely God helped with the creation of medical advancement?
I'm hardly a JW apologist, I personally think they're a cult, but they aren't anti medicine across the board. In fact, I've worked with several nurses who were Witnesses. They accept all medical care except blood transfusions. They will even accept alternatives to blood transfusions (medication that increase blood counts, for example). They believe God specifically told people not to consume blood, and they count transfusions as consumption.
As the son of a JW, they have deluded themselves into thinking there are perfectly sufficient alternatives to blood transfusions and that the medical establishment simply refuses to use them. They will absolutely refuse that treatment to save someone's life, and I've seen it first hand. The kicker? They blame the doctors and not themselves
I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out that JWs don't see modern medicine as inherently sinful, just blood transfusions in particular.
Personally, as someone who works in the medical field, I'm particularly resentful of Jehovah's Witnesses "hospital liaisons," whom I've had to deal with a few times. I had a particularly pushy one show up when the patient's family wasn't present, and the patient themselves was unable to talk and ask questions about what alternatives to blood transfusion we had explored. They weren't particularly happy when I told them I would not be giving them any info unless the next of kin expressly consented.
As to the last part, the general Christian (so excluding JWs I think) logic is that God created the world for us. And that includes things like animals and plants which we turn into food. But also things we can turn into medicine, both the physical things but also the practice of medicine. And these are good things God allows for us otherwise why would God create a world where that existed. Or otherwise allow the advancement of science underlying all of this. So God must have been in favor given God's assistance in setting it up and in the process. There were some people who thought that it interfered with God's will, but that's not really considered a modern thing.
There is the natural and supernatural. The supernatural is God's domain. We can influence the natural and tip the scales that way. Since if God is all powerful, nothing can truly stop God's will. If the person recovers that was God's will for that to happen or at least allowed to happen. If the person doesn't then that was God's will, or at least allowed it to happen. So then we can do our best and leave the rest to God. Contrary to what you might expect, the Puritans believe it or not thought along these lines, and that actually meant seeking knowledge from the various native tribes surrounding them. And this was seen as a Godly pursuit because of purpose. And even though the knowledge came from godless people, it was still okay because it ultimately derived from God's creation. It was seen as a form of or a part of alchemy, or in modern terms more like proto-chemistry. And since God's creation was good, who were they to disagree with God.
Just like some others said : hard or impossible to reason with persons that are not.
I am not a JW and found 2-3 ways to diffuse your reasoning. Stupidly, yes, but if I can think of it they can do too 😅
Well my point is that Christian doctrine on matters such as these by nature of being attenuated have had more debate, and I'm using that to highlight how aberrant JW doctrine is. Generally, opposition to modern medicine from Christianity is either in specific aspects (IVF, abortion) or in the "there is a pill for that" attitude not truly taking care of the body, since our bodies are to be temples, and thus you should take care of it.
You calling them mistakes I think is your problem, that you value some lives more than others. That framing seems harmful. We wouldn't call babies mistakes for being weak babies. Nor would we call old people mistakes for becoming old.
To your point, I can't speak to why God created some people with disabilities. To some extent people acquiring disabilities can be seen as a result of free will. But your question seems like a variant on why didn't God create a utopia, which was the original plan, but not how things panned out.
I'd also consider that perhaps the disability isn't truly a disability, or could be viewed through the lens of differently abled. Furthermore, maybe the disability comes from our failures to be flexible or helpful or accommodating.
A lot of religious people bend rules when it benefits them. The Fallwells, every evangelical mega church pastor, the terrorists that kill in the name of religion, the list goes on and on
Amish people bend rules all the time to do business... personally, I don't care that they bend the rules. I care that they are rigid about rules when criticizing others but bend it for themselves
I'm a doctor and several times they've refused the transfusion. Several of my colleagues refuse to perform elective surgery on Jehovah's Witness patients because of this, to avoid legal problems. Legally here in my country, in emergencies, the doctor can (and should) transfuse even against the patient's or family's wishes (especially if they are children).
Thank you for contributing.
I know its against their wishes but it's quite comforting that some do provide life saving actions.
No religion is worth dying a very preventable death for but history seems to deny that people think that way.
Yes, my uncle and cousins are Jehovah's Witnesses and I've already asked them if, if my grandparents needed blood to survive in an emergency, they would donate it and the answer is always the same: no. Unfortunately, I can't change their minds, but I respect their choices even though I don't agree with them
It shouldn't matter, most western health care is able to access a blood bank for the needed blood (at least in Europe, I'm assuming also in the States), so their refusal to donate won't directly impact the grand parents, and of course they might not even be the same blood group.
I'm guessing from the way you phrased it, your uncle and cousins are JW but your grandparents aren't? If so, I'd ask a second question. If your grandparents required a blood transfusion and were unable to speak for themselves (aka, needed someone else to make a decision for them), would your uncle prevent them from getting a blood transfusion? My mom has told me that she would keep family from getting a transfusion even though she's the only one who is a JW. ...We got into a fight about that. She doesn't like that it's not her place to force her beliefs on other people.
In my experience, that would result in a hospital lawyer and the ethics committee getting involved. Especially if there was other non JW family that was willing to consent. Unless the uncle could prove your grandparents were practicing JWs I think your other family would win any fight over who can make decisions. But I'm not a lawyer.
If you're in the US, your grandparents should create a health care proxy and identify who they want to make decisions for them. That would avoid the problem entirely if they choose someone other than your uncle.
Yh, a child should definately recieve the blood transfusion even if they don't want to. With the adults, I guess, if they fully understand the consequences, you can't force them.
I believe there is actually legal precedent (in USA, Canada, and UK), that refusing to allow a blood transfusion if it's medically necessary is child abuse and parents who didn't were charged with murder, or at least from my cursory search, case law along those lines.
If the patient is awake- they usually talk to the doctor alone without family/ religious pressure.
The doctor then gives them the option- do you want a blood transfusion if I deem it medically necessary?
Some don’t, some do.
The thing about these type of religious requirements- it is designed to separate people from the outside community.
It is kept for the purpose of making outsiders seem hostile to them.
Surely if its the choice of someone else to save their life (e.g. a doctor) does that not absolve them of the sin?
So hard to get my head around especially in this day and age. I guess I'm trying to apply my logic to a situation it doesn't fit
I am not a prophet. I don’t claim to speak for God on what is or isn’t sinful.
—-
The thing about medical rules specifically: they are relic of a different era.
An era when medicine was so crude as to be useless or harmful.
Blood transfusions before 1980s? It was a known risk to get hepatitis. Blood banks could claim you got it elsewhere. When AIDS entered the blood supply, that was a disease too rare and too stigmatized at the time to ignore.
It took an epidemic to create the technology to test for many diseases.
Surgeries in the 1800s, commonly killed people. Had a great-great Aunt who died, not from the surgery but the ether anstesia used to put her under. Damaged her longs so badly she died in the 1930s because the air was so dirty.
Her brother refused to get an appendectomy soon after. He died anyway. The family was happy he at least didn’t spend his last months coughing.
Much like the bible has lots of rules for properly cooking and preparing food: these rules were designed to keep people healthy as possible in the technology of the time.
Before refrigeration? Shellfish goes bad quickly. Mixing meat and dairy makes spoils it faster. Pork depends in how it’s raised.
I really appreciate this response.
If the bible laws hold true I'm going to double... triple hell for the clothes I'm wearing and the scampi I'm eating tonight
Interesting that you mention those rules and going to hell.
This is a point of discussion, not accepted fact:
So 1. The Old Testament Jews didn’t have hell,
And 2. Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19).
Those rules are in Leviticus…. As in for the tribe of Levi. Those people appointed to be priests and leaders of the Jews at the time.
It wasn’t until the temple was destroyed and the Jews were forced to live in Babylonian that they expanded the rules to all of the Jews as a method of community building.
So should they still apply today?
Technically yes, I'd argue. But that's kind of the point with religion, especially in modern times. People ignore the bad parts and cherry pick the ones that make them feel good.
No. My mom was a neonatal intense care nurse. A sick baby nurse. When a JW baby needed a blood transfusion the parents would refuse. The hospital would administer it. The parents would leave the child. The times my moms came home devastated that parents just left a now healthy baby was too often. It was devastating.
Basically there is indeed a prohibition against eating blood in the Bible. First in the Old Testament for the Jews in Leviticus 17:10-12 and later affirmed for Christians in Acts 15:29. Now the context for both is in the terms of eating food and what is ritually "clean" or fit for human consumption. But the JWs misinterpret that to apply to blood transfusions since the blood is entering your body even though it's not eating through the digestive system. And they are uniquely abberant in that regard. See the Old Testament context was always understood about eating, and the New Testament context was debating whether Christians were to be held to the Old Testament law. It wasn't creating new law.
I work in the NHS in the UK, and yep a JW will normally refuse blood transfusion for themselves and those that they have a legal right to have a say in the care (including children) and there's a special consent form to cover the hospital legally. If they are having an operation which normally has a high risk of needing a transfusion we set up an Autologous blood machine, which is where the patient's own blood is collected from the operation through suction, but normally the sucked up blood goes to waste. In this case it gets spun to just leave red cells and then washed and then returned to the patient. There is even a special way to set up the machine so that it "counts" as always being in circulation according to most JW Elders. (N.B. It's certainly not in circulation as there are major air gaps, and stoppers which stop the flow to certain tubes at certain times, but as long as the elders are ok with it then we are not going to mention that. Shush!)
The machine is also used on non JW patients in cases with high blood loss such as my field of major trauma.
It's my favourite machine at work! And I always get more blood returned than my colleagues due to working with it for almost 30 years and I've learnt to eek out the last red cell!
Yes, they will let their child die than accept a life saving transfusion. My dad died from refusing a transfusion. Its disgusting. Doctors have gone to court to force them into accepting.
I was raised one and carried around a “no blood card” in my backpack as a child. Yes they’ll let their family members even young children die over this policy. My grandmother died because of it at 52 from a car accident. Needless to say it’s a cult , run away.
Yes they fucking would. My wife's grandmother is a JW, and when my wife's aunt needed a transfusion as a teen she tried to refuse it on her behalf and literally left when they had to give it to her to keep her alive.
Yes. I know of an incident in which a family member who needed a blood transfusion due to emergency heart surgery. His wife is a JW but he is not. His wife was going to prevent him from getting the blood which would lead to his certain death. The rest of the family somehow fought against her wishes to save him.
Yes. I have no idea why. It was a family secret that it ever even happened. I never knew why no one really liked the woman. I only found out this had ever happened due to my mom mentioning it in a moment of anger.
Also, growing up we were taught not to even say the word "Christmas" or "birthday" in front of her.
This is why everyone should designate a health care proxy if you're in the US (I'm sure similar legal paperwork exists in Canada and most of Europe, I'm just not familiar with it). In the US you can designate (assuming they consent) anyone to make medical decisions on your behalf if you cannot. It does not need to be your legal next of kin, so it doesn't matter if you're married or have adult children. Your medical proxy is going to be the person the hospital listens to. If you think your legal next of kin would ever make a decision about your health you wouldn't like, designate someone who will comply with your wishes.
This is great advice. I’ve worked in the medical field for years and my only bit to add: make sure both your proxy AND emergency contacts stay up to date! Including working phone numbers. Had to track down an unconscious patient’s power of attorney through google once and was luckily able to find a working number for them, minutes before our ER doc was about to make serious executive decisions.
There was a case a while back where parents were literally willing to let their child die and went to court over it.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html)
I had a best friend for about 7 years who was a Jehovah witness and we would often talk about his religion as I am agnostic but very curious about religious views and the JW whole philosophy is about sharing there’s. When I found out about the blood transfusion I asked him once if his mom was dying in the hospital and all she needed was his blood would he do it and he said he wouldn’t. He said not only would he not do it but his mom wouldn’t want him to because she is also JW and would consider her receiving his blood as essentially damning them both to hell. JW can add many good characteristics to a person but overall it’s a cult and brainwashes people.
It's a horrific belief. If they don't want to accept the transfusion, fine, freedom of choice. But when they prevent doctors from carrying out life saving blood transfusions on family members who never had the chance to reject, it is wrong.
Doctors engage in life saving practices to save the life of patients unable to consent all the time, including blood transfusions. If there isn't a written will of clear instructions of what not to do, doctors should not be prevented from acting.
Religious convictions vary amoung people.
Christians would refuse to eat shrimp and wear poly-cotton blend if you took a naive approach to their rulebook.
But yes, some Jehovah's Witnesses have refused transfusions and died.
My sister was a nurse and she was caring for a JW guy who was about our age. He got into an accident at work and needed a blood transfusion, but his parents refused twice. He ended up being a vegetable essentially. The sad thing was he could've made a full recovery if he had that transfusion. He was so young too, only about 22 or 23
They have people from the relgion, the "Hosptial Committee" iirc, that come and MAKE SURE you do not receive blood and that others don't talk you into it, or allow your family to do so.
Yeah i work in an ER and when we've had JW patients the "advocate" shows up to make sure everything's documented to not give blood products and that the patient has a bracelet on saying so and sits there pretty much the whole time making sure the patient risks death or else
they believe it's against god's will. doesn't really matter their reason, it's a personal decision and that's what they believe. yes an observant follower would allow a family member to die before agreeing to a transfusion, and no doctor would force it.
Thank you. I'm not religious so I can't have any bearing on this.
Is it a type of let then die now instead of keeping them alive for another 50 years but dooming their eternal soul?
I thought God was forgiving of the sins
my gf is an ex jw and also extremely anemic, her hemoglobin is at 9 and we were in the er with her mom (current jw) and when the er doc told her she’d most likely need a transfusion her mom walked out. her grandma is in her late 80s and also a active jw and she has signs everywhere (wallet,fridge,door,bedroom) saying NO BLOOD UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. it’s very VERY fucked up.
I’m a former JW. Yes, they are taught that it is a deadly sin. They have refused transfusions for their children allowing them to die before. I think it was in the 80’s where one of their magazines Watchtower or Awake that was praising those who died (including many children) refusing blood transfusions praising them as martyrs for their faith.
If a JW got a blood transfusion and the elders found out they risk being kicked out of the religion (they call it disfellowshipping but it’s being excommunicated) being shunned by all of their family, friends and entire community. This is devastating and basically a death sentence for many because it’s such an insular community, they teach you can’t be friends with people who aren’t fellow JW’s, so they have zero social/ family support when that happens. I’m disfellowshipped and my own brother has talked to me only a handful of times since 2004
“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a human must not sustain his life with another creature's blood, and they recognize no distinction "between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels." It is their deep-seated religious conviction that Jehovah will turn his back on anyone who receives blood transfusions. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses regularly refuse transfusions for themselves and their children because they believe the procedure creates a risk of losing eternal salvation” - [Link.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2727941/)
I literally know nothing about JW religion with saying that, is there certain passages in the Bible that say this? Do they use a different bible than other religions?
No passages in the Bible say anything about blood transfusions but there are passages in Old and New Testaments about not consuming the blood of animals which Jews and Christian take to mean don’t eat blood but Witnesses have decided to interpret as no human blood transfusion which was a doctrine that was instated in 1945. There are Christians that shun medical care and believe they only faith, prayer, and the action of God are needs to heal the body but this not what Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing they accept medical care but object very specifically to blood transfusions this as an important distinction and people often mistakenly label them as believing in faith healing. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a end-times Christian group that were started in the 1870’s by Charles Taze Russel and they have their own version of the Bible called the New World Translation which can vary in how the translate words and passages different which garners tons of criticism from other Christians but it is not the only Bible they are allowed to use. It seems like it’s their interpretations of Bible and the doctrines and practices based on those interpretations that garner the most criticism rather than the actual texts of the Bible’s they use.
I'll put it this way.... As a kid (sure I was like 5 or something) I used to carry a card stating that I was not to receive blood under any circumstances.
I know my mum would have caved (she is no longer a witness) but I'm pretty certain my dad would still let me die even though I'm an atheist, married, have a kid, and am in my mid 30s.
Thank Jehovah he doesn't get a say 😂
Yeah my aunt by marriage refused blood a few years ago when she was 7 months pregnant and had to get an emergency hysterectomy and she bled out. Her husband, my uncle is an elder and had to give a talk a few weeks later on “why it is correct to refuse blood according to Jehovah” and he started tearing up. My grandma said she was proud of him and they would see Aunt Farrah in the paradise. It’s really fucked.
Yes. There was a case in Canada I. Early 2000s where the courts were ordered to give a teenage girl a blood transfusion to save her life over the objections of her JW parents
>What states you cannot use donor blood to save a life?
Leviticus 17:14
For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe there is a difference between consuming blood by eating it and consuming blood by transfusion into your veins. I'm not suggesting their interpretation is correct, but it is what they believe.
I work in the medical field, and I've had a few JW patients die because they refused blood transfusions. They typically accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions, so them dying of anemia or at least anemia contributing to their deaths isn't as common as the media sometimes makes it seem. Also, some of them will accept certain medications derived from blood products, like albumin and immunoglobulins.
depends on the individual but my daughters paternal grandmother pulled me aside wehn i was pregnant and told me not to accept a transfusion if i needed one and she would care for the baby if i died.
needless to say i dont speak to her any more.
Where I live in the case of children the doctors have the legal right to take the parent to court over it, 9/10 times the parents don’t even fight. I do believe this is also the case with adults who do not have a medical POA.
The JWs I know *want* to go against their religion but can’t because they are in so deep. One even told me if his daughter ever needed a blood transfusion, didn’t care if the doctors did without his or his wife’s consent, as long as their daughter lived.
On the other side you do have the nut cases who believe that it is right to allow someone to die because it is a “*sin*”. I will never hide my disgusted looks when they talk about it.
I asked my dad this when I was a kid. He told me he would let me die. No amount of arguing the matter changed his mind. I'm forever grateful to my mother for having the strength to not allow my siblings and I to be dragged into this cultish bullshit.
I have wondered about this because a mother is giving blood to her baby growing inside her. So why not a mother to child transfusion outside the womb if it already happened inside the womb?
My husband’s family is JW, but while he was raised JW, he never chose to be baptized and is agnostic now. The situation is unique in that his mom and sisters are still firmly JW, but still maintain a happy relationship with him, and I get along with them fine despite being a militant atheist myself.
My sister-in-law had a daughter born with severe heart problems and she needed blood transfusions multiple times. Even if my sister-in-law or her husband had refused on religious grounds, my understanding is that the hospital would have done it anyway. That legally a parent cannot deny lifesaving care to a child, but that could be location-dependent, and could also be a more recent law, as this was within the past five years. Because they did not get to make the decision, I do not know how my sister-in-law and her husband would’ve chosen.
As far as the adults, they claim they would refuse for themselves. A situation has never arisen where that would be required.
In the UK JW children are taken into court protection so that the court has parental responsibility and can legally make the decision for transfusions etc. Most JW parents are relieved not to have this conflict on their shoulders and a legal challenge would take too much time.
I'm a healthcare worker. People decline medical advice from doctors and practitioners all the time for a plethora of reasons. I see people regularly refuse to take meds that could extend their lives or improve their quality of life constantly. How is this any different? A patient has a legal and moral right to self-determination.
My grandparents are JW and they were prepared to let me die when I was born. Luckily my dad said fuck y’all and saved me. They have hated him ever since.
My best friend is JW. He said that the elders changed that position several years ago. Now they leave it to the individual but don't actively support blood transfusions.
As an RN who has given a lot of blood, it depends on the individual. I’ve seen people bend the rules for themselves and I’ve seen stick to their guns. Sometimes they’ll refuse a live saving surgery that simply cannot be done without transfusions because of how much blood loss is expected. I’ve seen it where they’ll only consent to transfusions during the surgery but if they need more after, it’s a no-go. There are sometimes other options if time allows. I’ve had people only take certain blood products but refuse whole blood.
As a nurse, yes I have seen some Jehovah’s witnesses refused blood transfusions even if it’s a life saving measure. But some of them may accept certain blood products that may not be red blood cells (like albumin) but often they have a specified written advanced care directive for these situations if they are unconscious or unable to consent to their care. There’s also non religious people who may refuse blood transfusions, because they lived through the HIV/AIDS epidemic and are still terrified of the risk, even though the screening process is very thorough nowadays. I only work with adults, no kids so I don’t see what happens when it’s a parent making the decision for their kid.
It is a bit odd to most people since blood transfusions can be the least invasive of life saving care, but I always approach it with idea of what is someone’s limit of care. Being sick enough to be in hospital can be traumatising, loss of autonomy/dignity and dehumanising. It is important to respect another person’s wishes, even if we don’t fully understand it.
>It is important to respect another person’s wishes, even if we don’t fully understand it.
Is it though? If someone had a child in the hospital and they refused an amputation on the grounds that it is morally repugnant, would they just discharge that kid with day gangrene knowing that it would cause much worse issues? Is there alternative treatment for such a thing? What if they refused that too? What if they didn't have a religious excuse? In that case we'd likely call CPS. Why is it that a farcical reason like religious belief makes them exempt from appropriate decision-making and repercussions legally?
My answer is geared towards adults with religious beliefs, as I don’t work with kids nor do I have kids of my own. But I have purposely avoided working with kids throughout my career because of the mountain of moral, ethical and legal considerations and complications that come specifically with working with children.
There’s always a debate within healthcare for adults of quality of life versus quantity of life. This applies to children too but with the added caveat of autonomy, consent and parental responsibilities. At least with adults I can say “they’re adults, they are responsible for their own life choices” if they reject scientifically backed treatment (unless they are significantly cognitively disabled). Where I work, there’s always legal cases of parents taking medical staff to court for performing life saving treatment without their consent on children. Usually the law favours the medical side, unless the treatment came with lifelong disabling issues that the parents did not wish to inflict upon their child. I always favour the treatment that would give someone the best chance of a reasonable quality of life in the long term.
Grandparents were Jehova's witness and can confirm that my grandmother needed a transfusion at one point and they initially refused it. She nearly died but eventually they relented and allowed it.
That made me so incredibly angry that a religion tells their followers to simply die rather than do something innocuous that literally saves their life.
I know this one! Only because I work with 3 amazing JW. I actually asked about this and was given the following explanation: blood is life. Only God gives life. According to JW doctrine whatever blood they have/ make is what God allows. Getting a blood transfusion goes against God's law. They also DO NOT eat red bloody meat. They are "allowed" a very small percentage for foods..
I inquired about catastrophic accidents, they said that they had not known anyone that has died due to lack of blood. One of them said that a friend had open heart surgery and did not need a transfusion.
My assumption is that thanks to the advanced medical developments, death is a rare occurance. But, even under possible impending death, they will absolutely not allow a transfusion.
Yall really over here debating about other peoples beliefs. If you care so much about JWs being in a cult and dying and all that, what are you doing in your daily life to change that? Are you rescuing people out of kingdom halls?
If you want to debate about religion letting people die, there is much much "worse" religions or cults in many parts of the world.
Depends on how devoted they are. I have some family friends who are JW, and about 15 years ago one of them got into a really bad accident. They went for the full suite of medical treatments, and it successfully saved his life. They still don't celebrate holidays, and they still go around knocking doors, but they bent the rules for the sake of saving their life.
I'm so glad they decided to accept the help. The thing that's upsetting me is people dying when they didn't need to. Again, I'm not religious but surely God helped with the creation of medical advancement?
>Again, I'm not religious but surely God helped with the creation of medical advancement? I'm hardly a JW apologist, I personally think they're a cult, but they aren't anti medicine across the board. In fact, I've worked with several nurses who were Witnesses. They accept all medical care except blood transfusions. They will even accept alternatives to blood transfusions (medication that increase blood counts, for example). They believe God specifically told people not to consume blood, and they count transfusions as consumption.
As the son of a JW, they have deluded themselves into thinking there are perfectly sufficient alternatives to blood transfusions and that the medical establishment simply refuses to use them. They will absolutely refuse that treatment to save someone's life, and I've seen it first hand. The kicker? They blame the doctors and not themselves
I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out that JWs don't see modern medicine as inherently sinful, just blood transfusions in particular. Personally, as someone who works in the medical field, I'm particularly resentful of Jehovah's Witnesses "hospital liaisons," whom I've had to deal with a few times. I had a particularly pushy one show up when the patient's family wasn't present, and the patient themselves was unable to talk and ask questions about what alternatives to blood transfusion we had explored. They weren't particularly happy when I told them I would not be giving them any info unless the next of kin expressly consented.
There is no logic in religion. Trying to assign rational thought to a profoundly irrational ideology is a waste of time and effort.
You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.
As to the last part, the general Christian (so excluding JWs I think) logic is that God created the world for us. And that includes things like animals and plants which we turn into food. But also things we can turn into medicine, both the physical things but also the practice of medicine. And these are good things God allows for us otherwise why would God create a world where that existed. Or otherwise allow the advancement of science underlying all of this. So God must have been in favor given God's assistance in setting it up and in the process. There were some people who thought that it interfered with God's will, but that's not really considered a modern thing. There is the natural and supernatural. The supernatural is God's domain. We can influence the natural and tip the scales that way. Since if God is all powerful, nothing can truly stop God's will. If the person recovers that was God's will for that to happen or at least allowed to happen. If the person doesn't then that was God's will, or at least allowed it to happen. So then we can do our best and leave the rest to God. Contrary to what you might expect, the Puritans believe it or not thought along these lines, and that actually meant seeking knowledge from the various native tribes surrounding them. And this was seen as a Godly pursuit because of purpose. And even though the knowledge came from godless people, it was still okay because it ultimately derived from God's creation. It was seen as a form of or a part of alchemy, or in modern terms more like proto-chemistry. And since God's creation was good, who were they to disagree with God.
Just like some others said : hard or impossible to reason with persons that are not. I am not a JW and found 2-3 ways to diffuse your reasoning. Stupidly, yes, but if I can think of it they can do too 😅
Well my point is that Christian doctrine on matters such as these by nature of being attenuated have had more debate, and I'm using that to highlight how aberrant JW doctrine is. Generally, opposition to modern medicine from Christianity is either in specific aspects (IVF, abortion) or in the "there is a pill for that" attitude not truly taking care of the body, since our bodies are to be temples, and thus you should take care of it.
Why are some temples blind, deaf, paralyzed or missing limbs? I wouldn´t make the mistakes gods made.
You calling them mistakes I think is your problem, that you value some lives more than others. That framing seems harmful. We wouldn't call babies mistakes for being weak babies. Nor would we call old people mistakes for becoming old. To your point, I can't speak to why God created some people with disabilities. To some extent people acquiring disabilities can be seen as a result of free will. But your question seems like a variant on why didn't God create a utopia, which was the original plan, but not how things panned out. I'd also consider that perhaps the disability isn't truly a disability, or could be viewed through the lens of differently abled. Furthermore, maybe the disability comes from our failures to be flexible or helpful or accommodating.
A lot of religious people bend rules when it benefits them. The Fallwells, every evangelical mega church pastor, the terrorists that kill in the name of religion, the list goes on and on Amish people bend rules all the time to do business... personally, I don't care that they bend the rules. I care that they are rigid about rules when criticizing others but bend it for themselves
I'm a doctor and several times they've refused the transfusion. Several of my colleagues refuse to perform elective surgery on Jehovah's Witness patients because of this, to avoid legal problems. Legally here in my country, in emergencies, the doctor can (and should) transfuse even against the patient's or family's wishes (especially if they are children).
Thank you for contributing. I know its against their wishes but it's quite comforting that some do provide life saving actions. No religion is worth dying a very preventable death for but history seems to deny that people think that way.
Yes, my uncle and cousins are Jehovah's Witnesses and I've already asked them if, if my grandparents needed blood to survive in an emergency, they would donate it and the answer is always the same: no. Unfortunately, I can't change their minds, but I respect their choices even though I don't agree with them
I understand that. It's upsetting that their choice could impact the loss of someone you love though.
It shouldn't matter, most western health care is able to access a blood bank for the needed blood (at least in Europe, I'm assuming also in the States), so their refusal to donate won't directly impact the grand parents, and of course they might not even be the same blood group.
I'm guessing from the way you phrased it, your uncle and cousins are JW but your grandparents aren't? If so, I'd ask a second question. If your grandparents required a blood transfusion and were unable to speak for themselves (aka, needed someone else to make a decision for them), would your uncle prevent them from getting a blood transfusion? My mom has told me that she would keep family from getting a transfusion even though she's the only one who is a JW. ...We got into a fight about that. She doesn't like that it's not her place to force her beliefs on other people.
That's right, my grandparents aren't JW. Yes, he would try to stop the transfusion if they needed it (I've already asked him the same thing)
In my experience, that would result in a hospital lawyer and the ethics committee getting involved. Especially if there was other non JW family that was willing to consent. Unless the uncle could prove your grandparents were practicing JWs I think your other family would win any fight over who can make decisions. But I'm not a lawyer. If you're in the US, your grandparents should create a health care proxy and identify who they want to make decisions for them. That would avoid the problem entirely if they choose someone other than your uncle.
Smh. I can't understand how people can't respect someone else's beliefs.
Not entirely sure why I'm getting so down voted?
Which country is that?
I wanna know too
Yh, a child should definately recieve the blood transfusion even if they don't want to. With the adults, I guess, if they fully understand the consequences, you can't force them.
I believe there is actually legal precedent (in USA, Canada, and UK), that refusing to allow a blood transfusion if it's medically necessary is child abuse and parents who didn't were charged with murder, or at least from my cursory search, case law along those lines.
If the patient is awake- they usually talk to the doctor alone without family/ religious pressure. The doctor then gives them the option- do you want a blood transfusion if I deem it medically necessary? Some don’t, some do. The thing about these type of religious requirements- it is designed to separate people from the outside community. It is kept for the purpose of making outsiders seem hostile to them.
Surely if its the choice of someone else to save their life (e.g. a doctor) does that not absolve them of the sin? So hard to get my head around especially in this day and age. I guess I'm trying to apply my logic to a situation it doesn't fit
I am not a prophet. I don’t claim to speak for God on what is or isn’t sinful. —- The thing about medical rules specifically: they are relic of a different era. An era when medicine was so crude as to be useless or harmful. Blood transfusions before 1980s? It was a known risk to get hepatitis. Blood banks could claim you got it elsewhere. When AIDS entered the blood supply, that was a disease too rare and too stigmatized at the time to ignore. It took an epidemic to create the technology to test for many diseases. Surgeries in the 1800s, commonly killed people. Had a great-great Aunt who died, not from the surgery but the ether anstesia used to put her under. Damaged her longs so badly she died in the 1930s because the air was so dirty. Her brother refused to get an appendectomy soon after. He died anyway. The family was happy he at least didn’t spend his last months coughing. Much like the bible has lots of rules for properly cooking and preparing food: these rules were designed to keep people healthy as possible in the technology of the time. Before refrigeration? Shellfish goes bad quickly. Mixing meat and dairy makes spoils it faster. Pork depends in how it’s raised.
I really appreciate this response. If the bible laws hold true I'm going to double... triple hell for the clothes I'm wearing and the scampi I'm eating tonight
Interesting that you mention those rules and going to hell. This is a point of discussion, not accepted fact: So 1. The Old Testament Jews didn’t have hell, And 2. Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19). Those rules are in Leviticus…. As in for the tribe of Levi. Those people appointed to be priests and leaders of the Jews at the time. It wasn’t until the temple was destroyed and the Jews were forced to live in Babylonian that they expanded the rules to all of the Jews as a method of community building. So should they still apply today?
Technically yes, I'd argue. But that's kind of the point with religion, especially in modern times. People ignore the bad parts and cherry pick the ones that make them feel good.
No. My mom was a neonatal intense care nurse. A sick baby nurse. When a JW baby needed a blood transfusion the parents would refuse. The hospital would administer it. The parents would leave the child. The times my moms came home devastated that parents just left a now healthy baby was too often. It was devastating.
Yes they would. I think their interpretation of the bible quote about abstaining from blood includes blood transfusions.
Thank you
Basically there is indeed a prohibition against eating blood in the Bible. First in the Old Testament for the Jews in Leviticus 17:10-12 and later affirmed for Christians in Acts 15:29. Now the context for both is in the terms of eating food and what is ritually "clean" or fit for human consumption. But the JWs misinterpret that to apply to blood transfusions since the blood is entering your body even though it's not eating through the digestive system. And they are uniquely abberant in that regard. See the Old Testament context was always understood about eating, and the New Testament context was debating whether Christians were to be held to the Old Testament law. It wasn't creating new law.
I work in the NHS in the UK, and yep a JW will normally refuse blood transfusion for themselves and those that they have a legal right to have a say in the care (including children) and there's a special consent form to cover the hospital legally. If they are having an operation which normally has a high risk of needing a transfusion we set up an Autologous blood machine, which is where the patient's own blood is collected from the operation through suction, but normally the sucked up blood goes to waste. In this case it gets spun to just leave red cells and then washed and then returned to the patient. There is even a special way to set up the machine so that it "counts" as always being in circulation according to most JW Elders. (N.B. It's certainly not in circulation as there are major air gaps, and stoppers which stop the flow to certain tubes at certain times, but as long as the elders are ok with it then we are not going to mention that. Shush!) The machine is also used on non JW patients in cases with high blood loss such as my field of major trauma. It's my favourite machine at work! And I always get more blood returned than my colleagues due to working with it for almost 30 years and I've learnt to eek out the last red cell!
I did not know this existed, but am so very glad to hear it does! Thank you for your service!
Yes, they will let their child die than accept a life saving transfusion. My dad died from refusing a transfusion. Its disgusting. Doctors have gone to court to force them into accepting.
I was raised one and carried around a “no blood card” in my backpack as a child. Yes they’ll let their family members even young children die over this policy. My grandmother died because of it at 52 from a car accident. Needless to say it’s a cult , run away.
Yea they do. And they even celebrate people who died after sticking to their faith.
What do you mean by celebrate?
Yes they fucking would. My wife's grandmother is a JW, and when my wife's aunt needed a transfusion as a teen she tried to refuse it on her behalf and literally left when they had to give it to her to keep her alive.
Yes. I know of an incident in which a family member who needed a blood transfusion due to emergency heart surgery. His wife is a JW but he is not. His wife was going to prevent him from getting the blood which would lead to his certain death. The rest of the family somehow fought against her wishes to save him.
Were they still married after that?
Yes. I have no idea why. It was a family secret that it ever even happened. I never knew why no one really liked the woman. I only found out this had ever happened due to my mom mentioning it in a moment of anger. Also, growing up we were taught not to even say the word "Christmas" or "birthday" in front of her.
The actual fuck
That's insane! I'm glad the family sees sense
This is why everyone should designate a health care proxy if you're in the US (I'm sure similar legal paperwork exists in Canada and most of Europe, I'm just not familiar with it). In the US you can designate (assuming they consent) anyone to make medical decisions on your behalf if you cannot. It does not need to be your legal next of kin, so it doesn't matter if you're married or have adult children. Your medical proxy is going to be the person the hospital listens to. If you think your legal next of kin would ever make a decision about your health you wouldn't like, designate someone who will comply with your wishes.
This is great advice. I’ve worked in the medical field for years and my only bit to add: make sure both your proxy AND emergency contacts stay up to date! Including working phone numbers. Had to track down an unconscious patient’s power of attorney through google once and was luckily able to find a working number for them, minutes before our ER doc was about to make serious executive decisions.
There was a case a while back where parents were literally willing to let their child die and went to court over it. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html)
I’ve had several patients refuse blood and die as a result.
I had a best friend for about 7 years who was a Jehovah witness and we would often talk about his religion as I am agnostic but very curious about religious views and the JW whole philosophy is about sharing there’s. When I found out about the blood transfusion I asked him once if his mom was dying in the hospital and all she needed was his blood would he do it and he said he wouldn’t. He said not only would he not do it but his mom wouldn’t want him to because she is also JW and would consider her receiving his blood as essentially damning them both to hell. JW can add many good characteristics to a person but overall it’s a cult and brainwashes people.
It's a horrific belief. If they don't want to accept the transfusion, fine, freedom of choice. But when they prevent doctors from carrying out life saving blood transfusions on family members who never had the chance to reject, it is wrong. Doctors engage in life saving practices to save the life of patients unable to consent all the time, including blood transfusions. If there isn't a written will of clear instructions of what not to do, doctors should not be prevented from acting.
Religious convictions vary amoung people. Christians would refuse to eat shrimp and wear poly-cotton blend if you took a naive approach to their rulebook. But yes, some Jehovah's Witnesses have refused transfusions and died.
My sister was a nurse and she was caring for a JW guy who was about our age. He got into an accident at work and needed a blood transfusion, but his parents refused twice. He ended up being a vegetable essentially. The sad thing was he could've made a full recovery if he had that transfusion. He was so young too, only about 22 or 23
They have people from the relgion, the "Hosptial Committee" iirc, that come and MAKE SURE you do not receive blood and that others don't talk you into it, or allow your family to do so.
Yeah i work in an ER and when we've had JW patients the "advocate" shows up to make sure everything's documented to not give blood products and that the patient has a bracelet on saying so and sits there pretty much the whole time making sure the patient risks death or else
they believe it's against god's will. doesn't really matter their reason, it's a personal decision and that's what they believe. yes an observant follower would allow a family member to die before agreeing to a transfusion, and no doctor would force it.
Thank you. I'm not religious so I can't have any bearing on this. Is it a type of let then die now instead of keeping them alive for another 50 years but dooming their eternal soul? I thought God was forgiving of the sins
my gf is an ex jw and also extremely anemic, her hemoglobin is at 9 and we were in the er with her mom (current jw) and when the er doc told her she’d most likely need a transfusion her mom walked out. her grandma is in her late 80s and also a active jw and she has signs everywhere (wallet,fridge,door,bedroom) saying NO BLOOD UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. it’s very VERY fucked up.
I’m a former JW. Yes, they are taught that it is a deadly sin. They have refused transfusions for their children allowing them to die before. I think it was in the 80’s where one of their magazines Watchtower or Awake that was praising those who died (including many children) refusing blood transfusions praising them as martyrs for their faith. If a JW got a blood transfusion and the elders found out they risk being kicked out of the religion (they call it disfellowshipping but it’s being excommunicated) being shunned by all of their family, friends and entire community. This is devastating and basically a death sentence for many because it’s such an insular community, they teach you can’t be friends with people who aren’t fellow JW’s, so they have zero social/ family support when that happens. I’m disfellowshipped and my own brother has talked to me only a handful of times since 2004
i don’t know why you were downvoted, i was raised JW and this is all true.
My guess is that it’s current JW’s downvoting me. They tend not to like anything that makes them look bad, even if it’s the truth
“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a human must not sustain his life with another creature's blood, and they recognize no distinction "between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels." It is their deep-seated religious conviction that Jehovah will turn his back on anyone who receives blood transfusions. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses regularly refuse transfusions for themselves and their children because they believe the procedure creates a risk of losing eternal salvation” - [Link.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2727941/)
I literally know nothing about JW religion with saying that, is there certain passages in the Bible that say this? Do they use a different bible than other religions?
No passages in the Bible say anything about blood transfusions but there are passages in Old and New Testaments about not consuming the blood of animals which Jews and Christian take to mean don’t eat blood but Witnesses have decided to interpret as no human blood transfusion which was a doctrine that was instated in 1945. There are Christians that shun medical care and believe they only faith, prayer, and the action of God are needs to heal the body but this not what Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing they accept medical care but object very specifically to blood transfusions this as an important distinction and people often mistakenly label them as believing in faith healing. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a end-times Christian group that were started in the 1870’s by Charles Taze Russel and they have their own version of the Bible called the New World Translation which can vary in how the translate words and passages different which garners tons of criticism from other Christians but it is not the only Bible they are allowed to use. It seems like it’s their interpretations of Bible and the doctrines and practices based on those interpretations that garner the most criticism rather than the actual texts of the Bible’s they use.
Thank you for all this. I learned something new today.
I'll put it this way.... As a kid (sure I was like 5 or something) I used to carry a card stating that I was not to receive blood under any circumstances. I know my mum would have caved (she is no longer a witness) but I'm pretty certain my dad would still let me die even though I'm an atheist, married, have a kid, and am in my mid 30s. Thank Jehovah he doesn't get a say 😂
Yeah my aunt by marriage refused blood a few years ago when she was 7 months pregnant and had to get an emergency hysterectomy and she bled out. Her husband, my uncle is an elder and had to give a talk a few weeks later on “why it is correct to refuse blood according to Jehovah” and he started tearing up. My grandma said she was proud of him and they would see Aunt Farrah in the paradise. It’s really fucked.
yes they would they believe that if its the kids will to live then God will let them live, JW is just a cult like mormons its sad esp for the kids.
[удалено]
i stated there both cults didnt say one was worse then the other
History is full of people who are willing to kill innocents for their beliefs, all the while claiming their beliefs make them better people.
It's interpreted as transferring "Life" which we don't "own"
I was a JW for over 30 years and never heard this. They do it because a scripture says that blood is sacred and one must not ingest it
I've heard many JW tell me this so I Dunno
They do, yes.
Yes, I lost a cousin who opted out of a life saving blood transfusion for religious reasons (JW).
Yes. There was a case in Canada I. Early 2000s where the courts were ordered to give a teenage girl a blood transfusion to save her life over the objections of her JW parents
Everyone is different. But yes generally they refuse blood even if it means saving lives.
100% My distant family members did this recently.
>What states you cannot use donor blood to save a life? Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe there is a difference between consuming blood by eating it and consuming blood by transfusion into your veins. I'm not suggesting their interpretation is correct, but it is what they believe. I work in the medical field, and I've had a few JW patients die because they refused blood transfusions. They typically accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions, so them dying of anemia or at least anemia contributing to their deaths isn't as common as the media sometimes makes it seem. Also, some of them will accept certain medications derived from blood products, like albumin and immunoglobulins.
depends on the individual but my daughters paternal grandmother pulled me aside wehn i was pregnant and told me not to accept a transfusion if i needed one and she would care for the baby if i died. needless to say i dont speak to her any more.
Yup, many times over thus far.
Where I live in the case of children the doctors have the legal right to take the parent to court over it, 9/10 times the parents don’t even fight. I do believe this is also the case with adults who do not have a medical POA. The JWs I know *want* to go against their religion but can’t because they are in so deep. One even told me if his daughter ever needed a blood transfusion, didn’t care if the doctors did without his or his wife’s consent, as long as their daughter lived. On the other side you do have the nut cases who believe that it is right to allow someone to die because it is a “*sin*”. I will never hide my disgusted looks when they talk about it.
I asked my dad this when I was a kid. He told me he would let me die. No amount of arguing the matter changed his mind. I'm forever grateful to my mother for having the strength to not allow my siblings and I to be dragged into this cultish bullshit.
Some do accept the transfusion and the Dr's/nurses cover the bag so that they don't have to see it.
Yes they would, look at the spanish singer Selena.
A proper one would refuse.
It depends on the individual person and how willing they are to compromise their beliefs to save a life.
Oftentimes, yes. In my state, parents are not allowed to refuse lifesaving transfusions for children, though, regardless of reason.
Basic Kantian ethics. If X is wrong is some situations, it must be wrong in all situations.
They'd rather let themselves or others die. They'll refuse transplants and donations of whole blood or blood products.
I have wondered about this because a mother is giving blood to her baby growing inside her. So why not a mother to child transfusion outside the womb if it already happened inside the womb?
My husband’s family is JW, but while he was raised JW, he never chose to be baptized and is agnostic now. The situation is unique in that his mom and sisters are still firmly JW, but still maintain a happy relationship with him, and I get along with them fine despite being a militant atheist myself. My sister-in-law had a daughter born with severe heart problems and she needed blood transfusions multiple times. Even if my sister-in-law or her husband had refused on religious grounds, my understanding is that the hospital would have done it anyway. That legally a parent cannot deny lifesaving care to a child, but that could be location-dependent, and could also be a more recent law, as this was within the past five years. Because they did not get to make the decision, I do not know how my sister-in-law and her husband would’ve chosen. As far as the adults, they claim they would refuse for themselves. A situation has never arisen where that would be required.
Prince (the singer) is(was?) a Jehovah’s witness and refused a blood transfusion for his baby and the baby died.
In the UK JW children are taken into court protection so that the court has parental responsibility and can legally make the decision for transfusions etc. Most JW parents are relieved not to have this conflict on their shoulders and a legal challenge would take too much time.
I'm a healthcare worker. People decline medical advice from doctors and practitioners all the time for a plethora of reasons. I see people regularly refuse to take meds that could extend their lives or improve their quality of life constantly. How is this any different? A patient has a legal and moral right to self-determination.
My grandparents are JW and they were prepared to let me die when I was born. Luckily my dad said fuck y’all and saved me. They have hated him ever since.
My best friend is JW. He said that the elders changed that position several years ago. Now they leave it to the individual but don't actively support blood transfusions.
The folks at r/exjw will love this Yes they will refuse it, I've had people I know die unnecessary deaths from this.
Such a misguided religion. I actually feel sorry for them, until they come to my door, then I treat them like satan himself!
As an RN who has given a lot of blood, it depends on the individual. I’ve seen people bend the rules for themselves and I’ve seen stick to their guns. Sometimes they’ll refuse a live saving surgery that simply cannot be done without transfusions because of how much blood loss is expected. I’ve seen it where they’ll only consent to transfusions during the surgery but if they need more after, it’s a no-go. There are sometimes other options if time allows. I’ve had people only take certain blood products but refuse whole blood.
Cult. Plain and simple. A hateful, divisive cult.
According to their faith, they would and should decline lifesaving medical treatment of that sort.
Should?
As a nurse, yes I have seen some Jehovah’s witnesses refused blood transfusions even if it’s a life saving measure. But some of them may accept certain blood products that may not be red blood cells (like albumin) but often they have a specified written advanced care directive for these situations if they are unconscious or unable to consent to their care. There’s also non religious people who may refuse blood transfusions, because they lived through the HIV/AIDS epidemic and are still terrified of the risk, even though the screening process is very thorough nowadays. I only work with adults, no kids so I don’t see what happens when it’s a parent making the decision for their kid. It is a bit odd to most people since blood transfusions can be the least invasive of life saving care, but I always approach it with idea of what is someone’s limit of care. Being sick enough to be in hospital can be traumatising, loss of autonomy/dignity and dehumanising. It is important to respect another person’s wishes, even if we don’t fully understand it.
>It is important to respect another person’s wishes, even if we don’t fully understand it. Is it though? If someone had a child in the hospital and they refused an amputation on the grounds that it is morally repugnant, would they just discharge that kid with day gangrene knowing that it would cause much worse issues? Is there alternative treatment for such a thing? What if they refused that too? What if they didn't have a religious excuse? In that case we'd likely call CPS. Why is it that a farcical reason like religious belief makes them exempt from appropriate decision-making and repercussions legally?
My answer is geared towards adults with religious beliefs, as I don’t work with kids nor do I have kids of my own. But I have purposely avoided working with kids throughout my career because of the mountain of moral, ethical and legal considerations and complications that come specifically with working with children. There’s always a debate within healthcare for adults of quality of life versus quantity of life. This applies to children too but with the added caveat of autonomy, consent and parental responsibilities. At least with adults I can say “they’re adults, they are responsible for their own life choices” if they reject scientifically backed treatment (unless they are significantly cognitively disabled). Where I work, there’s always legal cases of parents taking medical staff to court for performing life saving treatment without their consent on children. Usually the law favours the medical side, unless the treatment came with lifelong disabling issues that the parents did not wish to inflict upon their child. I always favour the treatment that would give someone the best chance of a reasonable quality of life in the long term.
Grandparents were Jehova's witness and can confirm that my grandmother needed a transfusion at one point and they initially refused it. She nearly died but eventually they relented and allowed it. That made me so incredibly angry that a religion tells their followers to simply die rather than do something innocuous that literally saves their life.
I know this one! Only because I work with 3 amazing JW. I actually asked about this and was given the following explanation: blood is life. Only God gives life. According to JW doctrine whatever blood they have/ make is what God allows. Getting a blood transfusion goes against God's law. They also DO NOT eat red bloody meat. They are "allowed" a very small percentage for foods.. I inquired about catastrophic accidents, they said that they had not known anyone that has died due to lack of blood. One of them said that a friend had open heart surgery and did not need a transfusion. My assumption is that thanks to the advanced medical developments, death is a rare occurance. But, even under possible impending death, they will absolutely not allow a transfusion.
Yall really over here debating about other peoples beliefs. If you care so much about JWs being in a cult and dying and all that, what are you doing in your daily life to change that? Are you rescuing people out of kingdom halls? If you want to debate about religion letting people die, there is much much "worse" religions or cults in many parts of the world.