If theAmerican Medical Association agree that blood transfusions?

The main reason why we do not take blood transfusions is because it is against God's law against eating blood.

We consider this sound reasoning to see the connection:

Medical doctors, realizing the life-sustaining power of blood, use blood transfusions freely in their treatment of patients. Is this in harmony with God’s will? Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually “eating.” But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered?

Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29)

What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into our bodies at all.

Does this put God’s servants at a disadvantage in comparison with persons who ignore the Bible and take blood transfusions? No, it works no real hardship on them. Do not forget that, immediately after telling Christians to ‘keep themselves from blood,’ the Scripture says: “If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:29)

God had that recorded in the Bible for a purpose. He knows what he is talking about! He knows more about blood than do doctors whose efforts, though they may be well meaning, do not always produce the desired results. (Mark 5:25-29)

The fact is that, while most patients survive blood transfusions, many become diseased as a result of them and thousands die every year as a direct result of them. There are other forms of treatment that do not cause such harm. A doctor may tell a person that he will be dead within a short time if he does not submit to a transfusion, but the patient may die even though he accepts blood. On the other hand, as you know, there are many patients who regain good health in spite of a doctor’s predictions to the contrary.

For the doubtful chance that one might be kept alive for a few more years in this system of things, would it make good sense to turn one’s back on God by breaking his law? If we try to save our life, or soul, by breaking God’s law, we will lose it everlastingly. That is why Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

So the wise course is always to have confidence in the rightness of God’s law and full faith that, if need be, God can give us life again by a resurrection in his new system of things. (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14) In that way we will show godly respect for life. We will not view our present life as being more precious than loyalty to God. Instead, we will keep our eye on God’s provision of eternal life for those who walk in the way of the truth.

Those in the medical profession in my family do agree with you. Taking blood in the arm is the same as eating it. Just like they give food through transfusions.

Rather God will hold some back because of this, I don't know and I'm not sure if that is what he meant by that when saying don't eat the blood. Or is it like eating a limb of a live animal which was forbidden in Jewish law doesn't meant you couldn't eat it at all if the animal was killed properly as some think.

The medical profession is slow to changed once something has been accepted as procedure.

I hear many doctors now are opting out of this procedure for safer methods

What I do is keep reading all I can on this subject.

The bible did not forbid blood transfusions. It forbid the actual eating of blood and for those of us who were raised around homegrown and butchered animals this is just common sense. You need to drain the blood from the animal before consuming the meat.

They were not transfusing blood at that time so this is NOT an accurate interpretation. And deciding that things like plasma or parts of the blood and saying that's ok when whole blood isn't because it is "safe" just reiterates my point that its not biblical.

That said, blood transfusions have saved more lives then they have put at risk or taken and are only used as needed to prevent death. It is a last resort. And as medical advancements are made we will need less and less. Yes there are serious risks and in some ways I think doctors use it as a goto measure too often but if I were in a terrible accident and bleeding out while they tried desperately to save my life I would be grateful for that blood risks and all.

There are certainly valid medical reasons to refuse a blood transfusion, and people refuse medical procedures ALL the time. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions to follow the scriptures.

Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’

Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

There the eating or consuming of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.

Consuming blood and blood transfusions are two different things. One is forbidden by the bible and the other isn't mentioned so NO, the bible doesn't support this.

Obviously you shouldn't have blood transfusions just for the heck of having one, but sometimes the advantages outweigh the dangers.

The forbidding of blood in the Bible refers to the draining of blood from food prior to preparation - which is still the standard in Kosher foods.

I'd much rather have a blood transfusion and live, than rely on a misinterpretation of a holy book and die.

You do realize that every time you eat a hamburger at McDonald's, Burger King, etc., you're consuming blood and in violation of your own scripture?

simple :D if they didn´t give them, that person wouldn´t have enough blood and he would die for sure...with blood transfusion he has a chance to live so even though it might be a risk it is better to take a risk than just let that person die....if it was your father and he would be bleeding out would you agree on the only possible option of blood transfusion or would you just make peace with the fact that he doesn´t have enough blood to survive anymore and so he will die....I think the answer is quite clear

Here is some information on bloodless surgery.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jehovahs-witnesses-who...

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/ma...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?artic...

And here's some more.

PBS Segment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3_wfQgZeyM&feature...

From Fox news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxct3OYvW90&list=UU...

Also, I have most of my surgeries at Tripler Army Hospital in Honolulu and they have no qualms about bloodless surgery. They just say, OK, we have Ringers Lactate (a volume expander used instead of blood).

In 1985 my wife lost most of her blood, but survived with no side effects from bloodless surgery.

I hope we're not keeping you from the Nobel Prize awards ceremony.

This is kind of like the Catholic church info about how condoms are bad for you.