Michael Ouradnik; The Bible, not religion, speaks for God

[Guest Kurt]

What's the deal with Jehovah's Witness and blood transfusions?

Michael Ouradnik response:
The tenor of your question is decidedly negative and sarcastic, in my opinion, and normally I’d refrain from responding. But….

This is the kind of “in your face” question that will probably attract the attention of those interested is seeing the Witnesses assaulted for being ignorant and negligent (concerning their refusal to allow their children to be transfused).

This, therefore, begs the questions:

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have sound reasons for their wholesale refusal to accept or allow blood transfusions?

Are their reasons religious (Biblical) or medically based, or both?

The simple answer is yes and both, respectively.

However, the most important, the default position, the trump, is the scriptural command to “abstain” from blood. Meaning, death notwithstanding, it’s irrelevant that a transfusion will save your life (a relatively very rare occurrence however).

How is this sound reasoning? Well if your not amenable to adhering to explicit Biblical principles, it’s not. But let’s reason on this for a bit.

Today, patriotism trumps religion for the majority, in my experience (we talk to a lot of people in our door to door witnessing), and we are sometimes sharply criticized for our refusal to take up arms in defense of our respective countries (we are a world wide organization to be found in every country). We could eventually face one of our own members in conflict, were we to participate in each countries military, which we wouldn’t want to do for obvious scriptural reasons (love your neighbor…love your enemy). What does that have to do with blood transfusions?

Why is it a noble, heroic and an honorable event to give ones life for a political ideal, in defense of a human institution, your government, but to die as a result of being conscientiously obedient to God is ignorance and stupidity? There’s no outcry here on Quora over the extensive, ongoing blood shed in our modern wars. Just the opposite. Those who have fallen in battle are highly honored. Just three days ago the USA celebrated it’s national Memorial Day holiday, in the reverential memory and honor of those who have fought and died in battle.

This is why I say that patriotism trumps the scriptures today. While this is true for many it’s not true for all, specifically, Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Apostle Peter made it clear, in one of his defense speeches to the authorities, that “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” when the law of the land conflicted with God’s laws or commands. (Acts 5:29)

It’s nothing short of hypocritical to judge the Witnesses negatively if their faithfulness to God’s command should result in their death, which would be the case if one died for lack of a transfusion.

For those who aren’t religious, just think of it as their obedience to their government, God’s Kingdom, to which they are willing to give their life in obedience. Isn’t this what defines one as a martyr?

Now there remains the question as to whether there are sound medical reasons too refuse a transfusion? Absolutely! This is an acknowledgement from the medical community itself (See the link below). In my research, being familiar with both sides, it’s my conclusion that your risk of death is much higher from a transfusion than from refusing one because of the advancements of bloodless surgery techniques.

Please visit the site linked below to the Surgery Encyclopedia and read for yourself how the participation of Jehovah’s Witnesses as willing patients during the development of these procedures (starting around 1960) has been essential. It’s hard to find volunteers willing to risk death while developing unproven experimental techniques so Witness participation was welcomed and essential.

So you’re thinking that you couldn’t care less, right? Since you’re ok with blood transfusions that’s good enough for you, right? Do yourself a favor and educate yourself a bit, read the article in the posted link. Rapidly increasing numbers of non Witness individuals are electing bloodless surgery with their doctor’s blessing because it is now seen as sound, cutting edge medicine. So the myth is put down; transfusions are no longer synonymous with survival and refusing blood is not an automatic death sentence, far from it. It has been abundantly demonstrated that recovery is quicker and with less complications for those who are not transfused.

So the vehement rhetoric regarding the Witnesses refusal of blood as medicine is founded more in ignorance and misguided emotion than fact. Yes, sometimes the refusal to transfuse results in death, BUT so do the not so infrequent complications of the transfusion itself. So it cannot be said that it’s irresponsible to refuse blood even if you’re making the decision for your minor child. There are risks either way medically, but non greater than direct disobedience to God’s commandments. Reflect on the following scripture regarding Jesus’ description of Christian priorities:

“For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it. For what benefit would it to a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:25 & 26)
Bloodless surgery

source

Michael Ouradnik