Why is it that people say they object to Jehovah's Witnesses because they think we "let people die" due to

There is no reason to this knee-jerk response that people have to Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood transfusions. The mantra is firmly embedded: "people die because they don't take blood transfusions." If that were really true, I would have died twice. I am still here. People don't die because they don't take blood transfusions. People die because they lost too much blood. There is a difference.

And you are right. Those who go off to war to fight for a cause in which they believe are hailed as heroes. But those who fight for a principle in which they believe (the principle outlined in the Bible respecting the sanctity of blood) are ridiculed and denounced. Those who die in that carnal warfare are hailed as heroes. Those who die standing up for the aforementioned principle are denounced as idiots, at the very least of it, and suicidal at the very worst. People don't care if you are trying to obey God, unless you are doing it THEIR way.

Hannah J Paul

Huh? Do you send your babies off to war? This makes no sense at all to compare our men and women fighting in wars with your babies who have no choice but to die because you refuse to save them with blood transfusions. By the way, we do save our injured men and women with blood transfusions also, and we do have the courage of defending justice and freedom which you and other JWs are enjoying very much of in our free countries. We are actually sacrificing for your freedom of religion. Only a small percentage of them die too, so most of them do come back home safely.

Yes....and worse.....religions are busy making money off bloodless medicine and surgery. There are hundreds of hospitals for bloodless medicine and surgery in the USA, many more "wings" of hospitals aimed at it.....and MOST are church built by mainline churches. And hospitals are not charitable organizations. They have a certain required by law amount of charity work they must do each year whether religious or not, the rest is all profit.

I've had 3 big surgeries without blood....one carotid artery replacement.

Debbie

VERY GOOD POINT. I will say the two ways of dying you mention *truly, really, honestly* falls under the meaning of *Sacrifice* and the *Ultimate* one at that. Death is the ultimate sacrifice. But now that is not what it is written in the Bible right. *As it is written*, Jesus through his blood was and is the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. Jesus is the *last* sacrifice for all mankind. You don't need to refuse blood transfusions and sacrifice your life for eternal life because as it is written "Jesus already did that for you" right. And as for wars, that also is written in the Bible. There will be wars after wars after wars until the final war of Armageddon comes and Jesus again will end all wars. That second sacrifice you mentioned is the *inevitable* because there is *no* stopping wars. In wars people will die and that can't be stopped until Jesus comes and end all wars. The bottom line is God Almighty (the powers over all powers) will judge the living and the dead.

Yes, and the very same people clamoring over our stance on blood will not say a word to a cigarette smoker at their 'church' who has children in the home.

The fact is, the children of smokers are in far more danger from the effects of second hand smoke than ours are regarding our stand on blood. Today with all the medical breakthroughs concerning bloodless surgery and alternatives, we are quite protected. Nothing is protecting the children of smokers.

I am one one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am happy to correctly answer your question. This may look long to read, but it is very important information and I assure you that your question about refusing to blood transfusion will be answered.

Blood Transfusions—How Much Actual Danger?

Dr. C. Ropartz, Director of the Central Department of Transfusions in Rouen, France, commented that “a bottle of blood is a bomb.” Since the dangerous results may not appear until some time has passed, he added, “furthermore, it may also be a time bomb for the patient.”51 A United States Government publication carried an article on the dangers of blood and said that

“ . . . donating blood can be compared to sending a loaded gun to an unsuspecting or unprepared person. . . . Like the loaded gun, there is a safety lever or button governing blood transfusions. But, how many persons have died from gun shot wounds as the result of believing the lever was on ‘safe’?”

Types of Transfusion Reactions

Febrile

Leukocyte antibodies

Platelet antibodies

Pyrogens

Allergic

Hemolytic

(incompatible transfusion)

Transmission of disease

Serum hepatitis

Malaria

Syphilis

Cytomegalovirus infection

Gross bacterial contamination

Cardiac overload

Citrate intoxication

Potassium intoxication

Abnormal bleeding

Incompatible transfusion

Massive transfusion

Isosensitization

Transfusion hemosiderosis

Miscellaneous

Thrombophlebitis

Air embolism

Injection of foreign material

121 These numerous types of transfusion reactions are indeed serious, for they can cause death. Let us consider some of them.

122 The table presents first some of the “immediate” reactions. A febrile or fever-producing reaction can usually be treated successfully. However, as Professor of Medicine James W. Linman reports, “severe febrile reactions occur and may be sufficiently stressful to be life-threatening in certain acutely ill patients.”58 Mismatched blood brings on a hemolytic reaction, involving rapid destruction of red blood cells, which can result in kidney failure, shock and death. Hemolytic reactions are especially dangerous to patients under anesthesia, for the symptoms may not be noticed until it is too late.59

123 “Transmission of disease” is also listed among possible reactions. Is there any substantial danger from this quarter?

124 Hepatitis B (serum hepatitis) is a particularly hazardous complication of blood transfusions. The blood of a donor, without its being suspected, may contain the hepatitis virus that can damage the health of a person receiving the blood, or even kill him. The more transfusions someone gets, the greater his likelihood is of contracting serum hepatitis. Yet it does not take a great deal of blood. Less than a drop will do; you can contract the disease from as little as one millionth of a milliliter of infected blood.60

125 How likely is it that you might contract hepatitis from a blood transfusion? To some extent that depends on where you live, for posttransfusion hepatitis is more common in lands where some of the blood comes from paid “donors,” people who sell their blood.

126 An estimate that often appears in medical journals is that one percent, or one person out of one hundred, contracts hepatitis following a transfusion.61 However, the evidence indicates that the true incidence may be much higher. This is so because hepatitis B has an incubation period of up to six months, so that the disease may not appear until long after the transfusion. Drs. John B. Alsever and Peter Van Schoonhoven wrote in Arizona Medicine:

“Its incidence over the past ten to fifteen years in large community blood centers has been about 1% in reported retrospective studies of clinically evident disease. However, when one studies transfused patients prospectively in the laboratory at 2- to 4-week intervals, one finds up to a ten times greater incidence of infection.”62

127 Look at this from another standpoint. It has often been said that in the United States there are 30,000 cases of posttransfusion hepatitis annually, with 1,500 to 3,000 deaths.63 If that were the situation it would be serious enough. However, information provided by the government’s Center for Disease Control points to a conservative figure for hepatitis B cases as being 200,000 or more annually.64 And who can even estimate the total number of transfusion-related hepatitis cases for all North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia?

128 Of course, some persons view the possibility of getting hepatitis from a blood transfusion as a justifiable risk. A doctor might reason, “I would rather have my patient alive with hepatitis, which I can treat, than dead from not having a transfusion.” But such reasoning is not a valid basis for viewing a patient’s conscientious objections to transfusion as ‘suicidal’ and unworthy of consideration.

Good point! Religion is irrational and contradicting in itself! It doesn't matter whether it's JW or Baptists, they're just as confused and complicated as any other religion!

This confusion leads thousands of young people into death, completely unnecessary, yet usefully politically. . .

Politicians like Bush love bigots giving their life for questionable purposes! Don't ask, just do, is what he wants to see! Questioning is something abominable to these people!!!

Why do they not tell how many people die because they do take blood. I know of many who have died from complications from having a transfusion. Some catch Hepatitus, A.I.D.s, kidney failure and many other things but do they publish that!!!

In the situation with JWs, you have an opportunity for a win-win-win. The person who donates blood would be happy that their blood helps someone, you have a doctor that wants to save lives, and you have a person who's life needs to be saved. That is what people have the problem with. Why would you avoid such an obviously winning outcome?

MMMM PREACH!

So true so true...they believe in letting them go to war, abortions, its sad...and yet when we show them from the bible that blood transfusions are wrong they want to say we let people die.

Show me in the bible where it says too let people go to war, and that abortions are right?

And we are the ones thats wrong...this world is so backwards