What do you think of a Jehovah Witness couple disowning their 5 year old son for receiving blood?

I am glad that the child has been removed from their care. The madness and cruelty of those parents--to disown their child because his life was saved through blood transfusion--is beyond belief. Just sickening that they would think so little of the welfare of their child.

Edit: I would note, for the benefit of the Jehovah's Witnesses who have answered, that as far as I know, no one has suggested that they disowned their child on the orders of other Witnesses. Aside from that, and irrelevant attacks on the utility of blood transfusions, is there any reason to doubt the article? Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses capable of immorality as much as anyone else?

Do you know, it would make me sick too if this is REALLY what took place! It is so easy for the media to home in on bad points and blow them out to such an extent that the facts are lost. Then there is the public who would rather believe a father would disown his own child, than to believe that there could be another story totally different and this is because everyone wants to think bad of us, which is exactly what Jesus said would happen! If this it is true that the father has disowned his child: two possible reasons. One, he is not ALLOWED to see his child because he is deemed a bad parent and the media are choosing to say different. Second, the names sound some form of African, so it is possible that the father has confused the issue and thinks that he can't accept his child because of the blood transfusion. And just to: reassure you all: if this does happen, in no way is the child to blame and therefore I know that if he was my child I would still love him and treat him no different to if he had not had one. Prejudice is a very powerful emotion.

Zaatheist's, haven't you heard of bloodless surgery? Because of the Jehovah's Witness this was invented. For many years I worked with many doctors and 9 out of 10 personally have said they would NEVER take blood. They now how disgusting it is. Most plastic surgeons do not have surgery on themselves because they know the side affects and up keeping. Is it a mystery? No, doctors know that Jehovah's Witnesses have been right all along. Many of the people who give plasma are the homeless. I have nothing against them but they are dirty, they smell horrible half the time I had to run out of the room to grasp for air. They are so poor they need the money so they sell their plasma (not to mention they are alcoholics and drug addicts). They never bathe, have no teeth and most seem crazy. I would NEVER want that blood flowing in my 5 year old. Many have unknown diseases unseen to the naked eye. If their rotten on the outside, they must be rotting in the inside if you know what I mean. They should have pictures of the toothless homeless in front of each blood pint so you know what and where the blood that will be running in your kids veins for the rest of their life came from. NOW THAT'S DISGUSTING! I say "PUT A FACE ON THAT BLOOD!

Seems more emotive banter against Jehovah's Witnesses than actually factual news. Can the "reporter" be vouched for and the story backed up? Doubt it.

Child abuse is when children are persecuted because their parents or family are Jehovah's Witnesses but nobody seems to give any consideration to that kind of abuse which happens in schools and in neighbourhoods.

Some people bray about a child not having blood but give no consideration for the child having his/her life made a misery because of such ridiculous stories that you dig up which are not factual but slanted to distribute misinformation and just down right lies.

Haters are very selective to the interests of Jehovah's Witness children, to when it suits them.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses and also a reporter I can tell you that when reporting on Jehovah's Witnesses reporters are very biased and report what people want to hear. For instance, a priest apparently had an altercation with a Jehovah's Witness recently but what was originally reported sounded as though the witness was at fault and of course it travelled through the internet like crazy. However, after the investigation it was found that the person at fault was not the man who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses but rather the priest. Did many care about the new report? Not many. I knew from the original report that it was false because the priest said the Jehovah's Witness told him to burn in hell. Since Jehovah's Witnesses know there is no such thing as a hell fire he wouldn't have said that.

I'm sure that the people in question here refused the blood transfusion. That being said, they would never have disowned their child.

Here are two articles about bloodless medicine that should enlighten you. Even the U.S. military recognizes that it is better.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287219

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281102

It is so easy to just take an article like this as pure fact! First, no witness mother or father would disown their child or an other for that matter when the matter was forced up on the child, but even if it had been the child's choice, they would still not turn their backs! What I strongly suspect here is that the parents are being told that they cannot be with their son because as far as the police and social workers are concerned (and many on here), it is bad parenting to refuse your child a: "life saving blood transfusion"!

And if the article is amazingly, for once, saying how it is, then I can assure you that this child's parents will be spoken to for none of us accept this kind of behaviour.

But I think that every single one on here wants to believe it all true, because then you have a wonderful juicy bit against us. I wonder what will happen when we are proved right?!

Sounds fishy to me. NOWHERE in any of the literature or teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is there ANY direction, suggestion, counsel, advice, or command to disown a child because a blood transfusion was forced upon it. A five-year-old cannot give informed consent.

It is neither the counsel or conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses to act in this way. The whole thing smacks of the reporter's interpretation of whatever really happened.

If this man truly has disowned his child (and that is by no means certain) then he is going completely against Jehovah's Witness' teaching.

He has a scriptural responsibility to his child and the elders will definitely get involved if he did this and he would surely be disciplined if he persisted in refusing his Christian responsibility to his son..

My guess is that the father did or said something that has been taken out of context.

I am not surprised not rushing of the medical theater. But disowning the child is not supported by witness theology and we have a wack-o on our hands would be a Wack-o whether a Witness or any other religion

anyway the Kid is better off with others to raise him

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I can say these kinds of reports are nearly always badly reported and misrepresented in favor of pandering to the masses and sensationalizing information.

The result is, as this thread illustrates, gullable people believe everything they read and are "outraged". No Jehovah's Witness parent "disowns" their 5 year old and the facts of the case have no doubt been twisted to suit the agenda of the reporting agency.

Misinformation and sensationalization feed the ignorance that feeds REAL abuse, so save your outrage for some serious research. Or swallow what you are being fed my the media without question. Your call.

My name is Sunshine.

Some how I find myself disbelieving this. Not the rejection of the blood but the disowning and the trouble making part.