JW Refuses to Let Husband have Life-saving Transfusion

by fjtoth 41 Replies latest watchtower medical

sweet pea

Another family torn apart by cult madness. My heart goes out to the family, especially those boys who no doubt know the real score.
moomanchu

unbelievable !!! sad that people die needlessly?.
digderidoo

Following on from this the JW is still critical. I read in todays paper that he was actually having a transfusion when the wife arrived at the hospital. She ordered them to stop immediately and the hospital were obliged to follow her orders.
Paul
fjtoth

I can't help pondering the insanity and twisted thinking found in this one paragraph within some of the newspaper reports:
A family source said: "Sheila is adamant that John must not have blood. She says giving him a transfusion would be like assaulting him — and he wouldn’t want to live knowing he’d disobeyed his God. She’s in a terrible state, constantly in tears at his bedside, but won’t give in to requests from anyone."
The "family source" is a JW. She should be ashamed of defending JWs by saying that "giving him a transfusion would be like assaulting him." Who really is the assaulter? The doctors fought desperately to save the husband's life on the way to the hospital and in the emergency room. If they just stood around and let him die, apparently JWs would not accuse them. Really? But if they try to save his life in the only logical way they know how, JWs would claim they were assaulting him--even that they were "raping" him, as they've claimed in other cases!
Then the JW "family source" said "he wouldn't want to live knowing he'd disobeyed his God." So the God of the JWs holds it against you and you should feel extremely guilty if you are completely unconscious and helpless when others--not you yourself--violate your religion in the way you are being treated! That is certainly no way to honor the God they claim to worship and serve.
Finally, the paragraph says the man's wife is "in a terrible state, constantly in tears at his bedside, but won't give in to requests from anyone." Why is she "in a terrible state"? Isn't everything going according to plan? Shouldn't JWs envision this type of scenario when they sign the "no-blood" card??? Shouldn't she be shedding tears of joy for getting what she and her husband signed up for?
She has a choice, and so does the governing body of JWs. They can save this man's life and stop his terrible suffering by ignoring an unreasonable man-made rule that has absolutely no support at all in the Bible and by allowing a blood transfusion.
What a tremendous burden the governing body has placed upon this woman's shoulders! If she refuses appropriate treatment and her husband continues to suffer and then dies, she will have short-lived hero status among JWs but she will be left with the scars of knowing she could have relieved her husband's suffering and prevented his miserable death. If she allows a transfusion, she will be a villian in the eyes of JWs. She will have saved her husband's life, but she will be disfellowshiped and immediately lose the friendship and camaraderie of all her friends of a lifetime, perhaps even the friendship of her husband.
The Bible condemns the worship of images and the creating of gods according to human imagination. Because of their blood doctrine, JWs have brought themselves under that condemnation. They've taken a few verses from the Bible that they conceitedly think they understand better than true biblical scholars, and they've fashioned a god to worship who takes vengeance upon innocence and who rewards heartlessness. Meanwhile they completely ignore the Son whom God sent into the world who would say in this situation: "Who will be the man among you that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out?" (Matthew 12:11, 12) Then he would add: "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing by saving a man's life with a blood transfusion." He would also ask, "'Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?' And they were not able to answer back on these things." (Luke 14:5, 6) JWs will doubtless be likewise speechless on Judgment Day when Jesus confronts them about their ban on blood transfusions even when human lives are in danger.
Frank
llbh

Thanks for posting Frank it is truly awfu iread this on Friday.
Yet i have been in a badly injured ane refused blood, i am so grateful for the skill of the surgeons.
I have recently informed my doctor that i am no longer a JW and will accept blood
Regards David
flipper

The J W wife and JW husband in this instance are in a damned if you do ; damned if you don't kind of situation . And they are in this situation in life - because of soma asinine man made rules from some dip$hits in the governing body in Brooklyn , New York
digderidoo

This reminds me of a situation i found myself in many years ago.
My ex wife's brother and his wife were in a terrible car crash on the way to Wales to spend time with us, as my auntie has a caravan situated there. It happened along the road where the Seven Sisters are if anyone is familiar with it, on a wintery day.
When we got to Shrewsbury hospital they were in surgery, my sister in laws mom and dad had actually signed the form allowing blood. Her mom was a witness but her dad wasn't. The grief she took off me ex's family for that was unreal.
When he came out of surgery he was put straight into an intensive care bed. We were all in the room and the surgeon said he needs blood and anyone of you (refering to mom, dad and 3 sisters) can sign for it. Nobody would, his dad isn't even a witness but he backed down. After an emotional and angry five or ten minutes the surgeon, who looked shattered she'd been working on him for 11 hours,but she said quite coldly, 'right he will die, i don't think he will make it the night if he does then we will see what tomorrow brings.'
The HLC soon got involved, they seemed more concerned about them not having blood than them both pulling through. They offered for us to pray together, but the prayer hardly mentioned about them pulling through. I remember at one point the father going mental, because it was as if they were there to police the surgeons.
The next day the head of the hospital got involved and said that they would respect their wishes as they were now in possession of the blood cards.
To cut a long story short they were in intensive care for about 2 weeks and took months to pull through, but they did eventually.
I will never forget my ex mother in law screaming 'i can't sign for him to have blood, i have brought him up all his life with our morals and to do so would go against all that.'
The ironic thing is though the accident would never had happened had he not been such a lunatic driver on an icy road. He was one of the worst drivers i knew, a total boy racer. After his wife started to get her memory back she began to remember telling him to slow down. 'Shut up stupid bitch' he was saying. They divorced over it.
And as for the other driver they crashed in to. He had a swollen brain, was in intensive care for many weeks, i don't know if there was anything long term over it. But guess what? He happened to be an ex JW, his active sister put us up the one night when we were visiting the hospital.
Paul
edmond dantes

The tragedy of all this no blood nonsense is the fact that saying a blood transfusion is evil is like someone saying that the moon is made of green cheese both are utterly ridiculous beliefs.The problem is that the Jdubs will know that the moon is nothing like cheese but because of the smoke and mirrors activity from the Society they believe what the leadership tell them to believe.
If they thought about it a bit harder they would realise that the JWs blood policy is about as valid as Rutherford saying Beth Sarim will be home to the ancient worthies.Do they not realise that Jesus is more likely to condemn them for not saving a life .
Wake up all you Jehovah Witnesses out there your leaders are fooling you and it's killing people!
To you Governing Body members ,off spring of vipers,workers of deception, God is going to be holding you to account and not every one claiming to be the Lords followers are going to win his approval so watch out because you are wrong time after time, after time.When you face the Almighty you can run but you can't hide.So sleep soundly in your beds tonight because there is going to be a reckoning one day.
OroToro

JW Refuses because it is written in scripture not to drink blood. Also contaminated blood is worse off today than when people use to drink it and not through the veins.
Blood substitutes may be better than anothers blood if the substitutes are ever found in great quantities.
In today's Medical Achievements ones blood can be recycled and re-injected into ones body. I say yes to that.
fjtoth

The Argus Brighton, England - June 10, 2008
Medics must stop the blood martyrs
Nine years ago former Jehovah's Witness Rachel Underhill was forced to refuse a lifesaving blood transfusion while giving birth to her twins. Rachel and her daughters Kira and Zoe survived to tell the tale - and left the faith a few years later. Now she is calling for a change in the law to allow doctors to perform blood transfusions, even against the wishes of the patient or their family. Simon Barrett reports.
When Rachel Underhill saw media reports about yet another Jehovah's Witness who lay dying in hospital, the bitter memories came flooding back.
John Edwards, 58, from London, needs a blood transfusion after a hit and run accident last week but his wife Sheila insists he would not want the life-saving procedure, which is against their religious beliefs.
As a result the couple's sons, who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, could have to watch their father die.
It was an all too familiar situation for Rachel Underhill who walked away from the faith after 30 years.
The 33-year-old company director now dedicates her spare time to helping former members of the religion and has set up a website to provide support to former Witnesses.
Seven years ago Rachel's case made headlines in The Argus when she rejected a blood transfusion during a Caesarean section.
Rachel, of Telscombe Cliffs, later revealed the decision was taken out of her hands by the Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee.
She now believes the law should be changed to stop the loss of more lives.
Rachel said: "I saw the story of John Edwards on the front page and it made me so angry.
"It's the same old story. Jehovah's Witnesses claim this is a rarity but it happens a lot more than people think.
"Jehovah's Witnesses need protecting from their religion and from themselves on this issue.
"I believe the law should be changed so hospitals automatically have the power to give Jehovah's Witnesses blood against their wishes."
Rachel's parents had been converted at the doorstep when she was three.
She went on to marry David, a fellow member, but doubts had begun to set in.
In 2004, Rachel eventually faked having an affair with an old friend, knowing she would be driven out of the religion.
She said: "Since that time people I have known for years just ignore me in the street. I was disowned by my family and friends but I am still so much happier now. I want to help others who are in my situation.
"Simply saying we can't change the law as we all have a right to choose our own medical treatment fails to take adequate consideration of the reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood.
"Theirs is not a truly free choice but one made under enormous pressure from church elders and the wider Witness community.
"Members know they will be shunned by all their Witness friends and family if they accept a transfusion. The Hospital Liaison Committee members - the Witnesses who liaise with medics when cases such as this arise - will be at their bedside reminding them of the prospect of eternal damnation should they fail to comply with their particular interpretation of the Bible.
"Because patients will have had these ideas so drummed into them, often since childhood, you have to ask whether or not they - or their next of kin - are actually of sound enough mind to make the decision to refuse a transfusion."
Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible forbids them from accepting blood, either in food or for medical reasons. There are about 125,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in Britain and more than six million worldwide, including tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams and musicians Prince and Hank Marvin. Followers accept medical and surgical treatment but believe blood transfusion is forbidden by the Bible.
Rachel, who will marry Gerry D'Ambrosio in Lewes next year, added: "The Jehovah's Witnesses are completely out of touch with every other Christian denomination on this matter and simply refuse to accept they might be wrong.
"Worse still, they seem to treat as martyrs those who die refusing transfusions. The whole policy itself and the thinking and teaching around it is, quite simply, sick.
"The Jehovah's Witnesses have changed their policy on other matters in the past such as when they started to allow transplants due to the numbers needed.
"I beg them to change this one to prevent further loss of life."
In recent years, several Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK have died refusing a blood transfusion.
Beverley Matthews, 33, died in 2000, 22-year-old Jonathan Everett died in 2001, Angela Shipperley, 36, died in 2003 and 22-year-old Emma Gough died in November last year after losing blood giving birth to twins.
Courts have respected the wishes of adult Witnesses to refuse transfusions but doctors can attempt to have medical responsibility transferred from parents if they refuse treatment for their children.
Rachel's website, set up to support former Witnesses, has more than 100 members.
For more information visit exjw-reunited.com.

JW Refuses to Let Husband have Life-saving Transfusion

Share this