Jehova's Witness'

[LJP07]

Jehovas Witnesses (JH) are a religious group who believe in Jesus. However, they stem much differently and branch into a strange religious group that even doctors nationally grow to despise their beliefs. There was a case in Ireland a couple of months ago about a Jehova's Witness whom would die with her child if she did not take a blood transfusion. However, she refused the transfusion as she was part of this religious group. Doctors then proceeded with the transfusion against her wish. Is this right? Should she of died if that's what she wanted or was it right for the doctors to save her and her unborn baby.

 

This is probably one of many cases worldwide where the Jehova religion puts these issues among the doctors of the world. However, they have beliefs, and here is a short-list of 101 of them:

 

Qedit: link was enough.

 

101 Strange Beliefs and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

Now, I don't support this. It seems to be a dictatorship and blocks people from living their life happily and to the full extent. It was a made-up religion that has taken it's toll and gone too far. This is my opinion. Like wo decides that you can't be in a school play, can't box, wrestle or enter a church, say certain words or do ordinary acts. It's ridiculous and was quite shocked as to the extent that they live their life like this.

 

I'd like to get your opinion on this?

[/font][/size][/font]

[CerebralEcstasy]

While you state some very interesting things, some true - some not....

 

This is from the watchtower site itself. They openly explain all their beliefs for anyone who is interested.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses--Who Are They? What Do They Believe? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

 

Qedit: link was enough, and has been corrected.

[CerebralEcstasy]

As for the blood issue, doctors although well meaning do not have the right to impose their beliefs upon others. Many doctors are respectful of the Jehovah's Witness standpoint on blood, and many advances have also been made towards bloodless medicine because of the witnesses.

 

 

Reprinted with permission of the American Medical Association from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472. Copyright 1981, American Medical Association.

 

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

THE SURGICAL/ETHICAL CHALLENGE

Physicians face a special challenge in treating Jehovah's Witnesses. Members of this faith have deep religious convictions against accepting homologous or autologous whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], WBCs [white blood cells], or platelets. Many will allow the use of (non-blood-prime) heart-lung, dialysis, or similar equipment if the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted. Medical personnel need not be concerned about liability, for Witnesses will take adequate legal steps to relieve liability as to their informed refusal of blood. They accept nonblood replacement fluids. Using these and other meticulous techniques, physicians are performing major surgery of all types on adult and minor Witness patients. A standard of practice for such patients has thus developed that accords with the tenet of treating the "whole person." (JAMA 1981;246:2471-2472)

PHYSICIANS face a growing challenge that is a major health issue. There are over half a million Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States who do not accept blood transfusions. The number of Witnesses and those associated with them is increasing. Although formerly, many physicians and hospital officials viewed refusal of a transfusion as a legal problem and sought court authorization to proceed as they believed was medically advisable, recent medical literature reveals that a notable change in attitude is occurring. This may be a result of more surgical experience with patients having very low hemoglobin levels and may also reflect increased awareness of the legal principle of informed consent.

Now, large numbers of elective surgical and trauma cases involving both adult and minor Witnesses are being managed without blood transfusions. Recently, representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses met with surgical and administrative personnel at some of the largest medical centers in the country. These meetings improved understanding and helped resolve questions about blood salvage, transplants, and the avoidance of medical/legal confrontations.

WITNESS POSITION ON THERAPY

Jehovah's Witnesses accept medical and surgical treatment. In fact, scores of them are physicians, even surgeons. But Witnesses are deeply religious people who believe that blood transfusion is forbidden for them by Biblical passages such as: "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat" (Genesis 9:3-4); "[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with dust" (Leviticus 17:13-14); and "Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-21).1

While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.2

Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them. However, many Witnesses permit the use of dialysis and heart-lung equipment (non-blood-prime) as well as intraoperative salvage where the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted; the physician should consult with the individual patient as to what his conscience dictates.2

The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.

MAJOR SURGERY POSSIBLE

Although surgeons have often declined to treat Witnesses because their stand on the use of blood products seemed to "tie the doctor's hands," many physicians have now chosen to view the situation as only one more complication challenging their skill. Since Witnesses do not object to colloid or crystalloid replacement fluids, nor to electrocautery, hypotensive anesthesia,3 or hypothermia, these have been employed successfully. Current and future applications of hetastarch,4 large-dose intravenous iron dextran injections,5,6 and the "sonic scalpel"7 are promising and not religiously objectionable. Also, if a recently developed fluorinated blood substitute (Fluosol-DA) proves to be safe and effective,8 its use will not conflict with Witness beliefs.

In 1977, Ott and Cooley9 reported on 542 cardiovascular operations performed on Witnesses without transfusing blood and concluded that this procedure can be done "with an acceptably low risk." In response to our request, Cooley recently did a statistical review of 1,026 operations, 22% on minors, and determined "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah's Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others." Similarly, Michael E. DeBakey, MD, communicated "that in the great majority of situations [involving Witnesses] the risk of operation without the use of blood transfusions is no greater than in those patients on whom we use blood transfusions" (personal communication, March 1981). The literature also records successful major urologic10 and orthopedic surgery.11 G. Dean MacEwen, MD, and J. Richard Bowen, MD, write that posterior spinal fusion "has been successfully accomplished for 20 [Witness] minors" (unpublished data, August 1981). They add: "The surgeon needs to establish the philosophy of respect for a patient's right to refuse a blood transfusion but still perform surgical procedures in a manner that allows safety to the patient."

Herbsman12 reports success in cases, including some involving youths, "with massive traumatic blood loss." He admits that "Witnesses are somewhat at a disadvantage when it comes to blood requirements. Nevertheless it's also quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement." Observing that many surgeons have felt restrained from accepting Witnesses as patients out of "fear of legal consequences," he shows that this is not a valid concern.

LEGAL CONCERNS AND MINORS

Witnesses readily sign the American Medical Association form relieving physicians and hospitals of liability,13 and most Witnesses carry a dated, witnessed Medical Alert card prepared in consultation with medical and legal authorities. These documents are binding on the patient (or his estate) and offer protection to physicians, for Justice Warren Burger held that a malpractice proceeding "would appear unsupported" where such a waiver had been signed. Also, commenting on this in an analysis of "compulsory medical treatment and religious freedom," Paris14 wrote: "One commentator who surveyed the literature reported, 'I have not been able to find any authority for the statement that the physician would incur . . . criminal . . . liability by his failure to force a transfusion on an unwilling patient.' The risk seems more the product of a fertile legal mind than a realistic possibility."

Care of minors presents the greatest concern, often resulting in legal action against parents under child-neglect statutes. But such actions are questioned by many physicians and attorneys familiar with Witness cases, who believe that Witness parents seek good medical care for their children. Not desirous of shirking their parental responsibility or of shifting it to a judge or other third party, Witnesses urge that consideration be given to the family's religious tenets. Dr. A. D. Kelly, former Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote15 that "parents of minors and the next of kin of unconscious patients possess the right to interpret the will of the patient. . . . I do not admire the proceedings of a moot court assembled at 2:00 AM to remove a child from his parent's custody."

It is axiomatic that parents have a voice in the care of their children, such as when the risk-benefit potentials of surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy are faced. For moral reasons that go beyond the issue of the risk of transfusion,16 Witness parents ask that therapies be used that are not religiously prohibited. This accords with the medical tenet of treating "the whole person," not overlooking the possible lasting psychosocial damage of an invasive procedure that violates a family's fundamental beliefs. Often, large centers around the country having experience with the Witnesses now accept patient transfers from institutions unwilling to treat Witnesses, even pediatric cases.

THE PHYSICIAN'S CHALLENGE

Understandably, caring for Jehovah's Witnesses might seem to pose a dilemma for the physician dedicated to preserving life and health by employing all the techniques at his disposal. Editorially prefacing a series of articles about major surgery on Witnesses, Harvey17 admitted, "I do find annoying those beliefs that may interfere with my work." But, he added: "Perhaps we too easily forget that surgery is a craft dependent upon the personal technique of individuals. Technique can be improved."

Professor Bolooki18 took note of a disturbing report that one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Dade County, Florida, had a "blanket policy of refusing to treat" Witnesses. He pointed out that "most surgical procedures in this group of patients are associated with less risk than usual." He added: "Although the surgeons may feel that they are deprived of an instrument of modern medicine . . . I am convinced that by operating on these patients they will learn a great deal."

Rather than consider the Witness patient a problem, more and more physicians accept the situation as a medical challenge. In meeting the challenge they have developed a standard of practice for this group of patients that is accepted at numerous medical centers around the country. These physicians are at the same time providing care that is best for the patient's total good. As Gardner et al19 observe: "Who would benefit if the patient's corporal malady is cured but the spiritual life with God, as he sees it, is compromised, which leads to a life that is meaningless and perhaps worse than death itself."

Witnesses recognize that, medically, their firmly held conviction appears to add a degree of risk and may complicate their care. Accordingly, they generally manifest unusual appreciation for the care they receive. In addition to having the vital elements of deep faith and an intense will to live, they gladly cooperate with physicians and medical staff. Thus, both patient and physician are united in facing this unique challenge.

REFERENCES

1. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood. Brooklyn, NY, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977, pp. 1-64.

2. The Watchtower 1978;99 (June 15):29-31.

3. Hypotensive anesthesia facilitates hip surgery, MEDICAL NEWS. JAMA 1978;239:181.

4. Hetastarch (Hespan)—a new plasma expander. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1981;23:16.

5. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL:Intravenous iron dextran in clinical medicine. JAMA 1980;243:1726-1731.

6. Lapin R: Major surgery in Jehovah's Witnesses. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:647-654.

7. Fuerst ML: 'Sonic scalpel' spares vessels. Med Trib 1981;22:1,30.

8. Gonzáles ER: The saga of 'artificial blood': Fluosol a special boon to Jehovah's Witnesses. JAMA 1980;243:719-724.

9. Ott DA, Cooley DA: Cardiovascular surgery in Jehovah's Witnesses. JAMA 1977;238:1256-1258.

10. Roen PR, Velcek F: Extensive urologic surgery without blood transfusion. NY State J Med 1972;72:2524-2527.

11. Nelson CL, Martin K, Lawson N, et al: Total hip replacement without transfusion. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:655-658.

12. Herbsman H: Treating the Jehovah's Witness. Emerg Med 1980;12:73-76.

13. Medicolegal Forms With Legal Analysis. Chicago, American Medical Association, 1976, p. 83.

14. Paris JJ: Compulsory medical treatment and religious freedom: Whose law shall prevail? Univ San Francisco Law Rev 1975;10:1-35.

15. Kelly AD: Aequanimitas Can Med Assoc J 1967;96:432.

16. Kolins J: Fatalities from blood transfusion. JAMA 1981;245:1120.

17. Harvey JP: A question of craftsmanship. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:629.

18. Bolooki H: Treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses: Example of good care. Miami Med 1981;51:25-26.

19. Gardner B, Bivona J, Alfonso A, et al: Major surgery in Jehovah's Witnesses. NY State J Med 1976;76:765-766.

[CraigD]

… Now, I don't support this. It seems to be a dictatorship and blocks people from living their life happily and to the full extent. It was a made-up religion that has taken it's toll and gone too far. This is my opinion. Like wo decides that you can't be in a school play, can't box, wrestle or enter a church, say certain words or do ordinary acts. It's ridiculous and was quite shocked as to the extent that they live their life like this.

Although basically accurate, I think former Witnesses Paul and Pat Blizard’s list somewhat distorts the experiences of many Witnesses and former Witnesses, and would advise anyone wishing to understand this religion to study it from many sources, both supportive and condemming.

I'd like to get your opinion on this?

 

As long as I’ve been acquainted with them, I’ve enjoyed good relations with Witnesses. Unlike members of some other religions and some non-religious people, none have every attacked me or stolen from me, and only one has ever become angry with and spoken ill of me.

 

I’ve only personally know one Witness family who were faced with a conflict between physical survival and their beliefs, involving a surgical procedure in which transfused blood might be necessary. Their surgeon promised to avoid a transfusion unless necessary to avoid certain death of serious complication, but explained that his beliefs would not permit him to allow a death he could prevent. The family accepted this arrangement, and the surgery was successful without using blood transfusion.

 

An aspect of their beliefs that allows me, an materialistic atheist, to relate better to Witnesses, is that they don’t believe in an immaterial heaven, but a physical one that will eventually exist on Earth. Although I share none of their belief in the supernatural, I find that my image of a better future Earth, in which poverty, disease, and other sources of human suffering have been eliminated, to be not incompatible with theirs, which differs mostly in the agency responsible for this better world: I believe science and technology will achieve it, while they believe a supernatural being will.

[sanctus]

Jokes and disrespect to other faiths do not belong to the theology forum (actually nowhere), but as it wasn't too strong I moved this part to the watercooler. You'll find it under the name "how to get rid of Jehovah Witness'"

 

I have a slow connection at the moment so I don't put the link....

[Freddy]

What adults decide for themselves in their medical treatment is their sole responsibility. However, in the US minors are protected from foreseen harm. In the case of certain life saving procedures minors will be protected over the religious beliefs or simply parental wishes. Sometimes, as in the case of cancer treatments it may be difficult to determine what treatment offers the best hope. Courts today seem to be more open to alternative treatments especially where the recommended treatment has not been effective.

 

In 1996 I underwent stump revision surgery and to my surprise and relief no blood, that was on hand, was needed. HIV was a small possibility. I am having more revision surgery in June and I likely will not need blood. I suppose I could donate for my own bank.

[Racoon]

My neighbors are Jehovah Witnesses :cup:

Every Thursday they have a congregation of fellow witnesses and jam up the cul de sac with cars for a good bible thump.

 

They are good neighbors and respectful.

 

I do resent the occasional door knocker looking to hand out free worthless copies of the Watchtower, and looking to come inside and preach/teach whatever they've been brainwashed with.

 

They don't celebrate any holidays, and as far as I can surmise, they aren't much fun.

 

But to each their own...

[CerebralEcstasy]

Jokes and disrespect to other faiths do not belong to the theology forum (actually nowhere), but as it wasn't too strong I moved this part to the watercooler. You'll find it under the name "how to get rid of Jehovah Witness'"

 

I have a slow connection at the moment so I don't put the link....

 

Actually Sanctus the one I posted, is something that another witness sent to me. Most of the quotes Jeff Foxworthy made are funny to those who follow the Jehovah's Witness faith.

 

So if you wouldn't mind removing it from the section -I'd greatly appreciate it, because it doesn't really fit with the theme of that particular thread.

[C1ay]

So if you wouldn't mind removing it from the section -I'd greatly appreciate it, because it doesn't really fit with the theme of that particular thread.

 

You can always delete your own posts by editting them.....

[CerebralEcstasy]

You can always delete your own posts by editting them.....

 

Yes, I did think of that. However, I was thinking of my name still sitting there. No matter, I've since edited it and I think it's fine now.

[LJP07]

So has anyone else read the 101 facts and have an opinion or what have you learned/ have more to contribute to the thread that you know about this religion?

 

Sanctus, I got your PM, this thread wasn't deleted from what I'm doing right now :cup:, Was there a problem of sorts?

 

LJP07

[sanctus]

Didn't I send you a link to the part I moved to the watercooler?

Just go there and look for the thread called how to get rid of Jehovah witness'. Then you'll understand my pm better. In case you don't agree contact another admin, as I'm off for a week...

[CerebralEcstasy]

So has anyone else read the 101 facts and have an opinion or what have you learned/ have more to contribute to the thread that you know about this religion?

 

Sanctus, I got your PM, this thread wasn't deleted from what I'm doing right now :), Was there a problem of sorts? :P

 

LJP07

 

Your facts are somewhat skewed, you should recheck your data against the the link I provided. As I said some are true, others are not, and others I just outright laughed at.

[LJP07]

Your facts are somewhat skewed, you should recheck your data against the the link I provided. As I said some are true, others are not, and others I just outright laughed at.

 

They're not my facts.

 

I rechecked my data and checked yours and quite frankly, I don't think yours is an exhausted list, you can't summarise a whole religions beliefs into 43 beliefs whic your link has, nor for that matter can 101 beliefs be exhaustive.

 

What determines that the link I provided are wrong anyway?? ;)

 

I still cannot fathom who determines some of their outrageous beliefs, and they are genuinely outrageous. I respect what they believe but in my personal opinion, some of there beliefs are down right ridiculous. In both links provided, Satan is said to be the invisible ruler of the world??

 

Also, Spiritism must be shunned. And an offensive one for Christians, Hell is mankinds common grave?? Does anyone know the background behind all of this? Or any information that can provie reasonable argument to support such starkly sour or bitter statements?

[Freddy]

They're not my facts.

 

I rechecked my data and checked yours and quite frankly, I don't think yours is an exhausted list, you can't summarise a whole religions beliefs into 43 beliefs whic your link has, nor for that matter can 101 beliefs be exhaustive.

 

What determines that the link I provided are wrong anyway?? :(

 

I still cannot fathom who determines some of their outrageous beliefs, and they are genuinely outrageous. I respect what they believe but in my personal opinion, some of there beliefs are down right ridiculous. In both links provided, Satan is said to be the invisible ruler of the world??

 

Also, Spiritism must be shunned. And an offensive one for Christians, Hell is mankinds common grave?? Does anyone know the background behind all of this? Or any information that can provie reasonable argument to support such starkly sour or bitter statements?

 

It is simple. The 43 beliefs at the JW site cite scriptures that they have interpreted as their 43 listed beliefs. We do not have to agree with them. Just know that they follow them. Many JW's were killed by the Nazis for following those beliefs. In fact I may have seen several today walking down the street with briefcases before entering the condo complex next door. Then again, they could have been realtors.

 

From Wikipedia:

"Jehovah's Witnesses originated with the religious movement known as Bible Students, which was founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell."

[LJP07]

Late 1870's, that's exceptionally recent. I've just found further information on this religion:

 

" Those who remained supportive of the Watchtower Society adopted the name Jehovas Witness in 1931 ", from Wikipedia, Even more recent.

 

" Other Witness teachings include the recognition and use of a personal name for God, translated as Jehovah in English, as vital for acceptable worship"...

[CerebralEcstasy]

They're not my facts.

 

True, my apologies. They were something that you posted from someone else's site.

 

I rechecked my data and checked yours and quite frankly, I don't think yours is an exhausted list, you can't summarise a whole religions beliefs into 43 beliefs whic your link has, nor for that matter can 101 beliefs be exhaustive.

 

It is a complete list of what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and which scriptures they use to support them.

Other matters not discussed on the page, may be open to personal discretion, or a matter of personal conscience.

It should be noted that most of the alternative reading material tends to be very negative as it is written by people who were once within the congregation, but were disfellowshipped for conduct not befitting one who professes to be a christian.

Much like a child is reprimanded and disciplined, disfellowshipping aims to force the person doing the sin, to re-examine his or her conduct and make adjustments.

Some do this, and are once again considered in good standing. Others do not, and take their griefs public. They're offended that people who are doing their best to NOT commit sins, don't want to mix in their company.

I don't suspect if you have children you'd want them to be hanging around with bad influences - the same applies here to those types.

What determines that the link I provided are wrong anyway?? :D

 

Yours contains speculation, the one I provided is from the watchtower site. It doesn't speculate, it lists what they believe.

 

I still cannot fathom who determines some of their outrageous beliefs, and they are genuinely outrageous. I respect what they believe but in my personal opinion, some of there beliefs are down right ridiculous. In both links provided, Satan is said to be the invisible ruler of the world??

 

Can you provide a better explanation? If Satan really is the invisible ruler of the world - providing you believe he exists - would it not be a plausible explanation for the degradation of humanity?

 

While I agree people must be in control of themselves and their actions, some of the crimes and conduct of humans today is evil - there is no other way to explain it.

 

Also, Spiritism must be shunned. And an offensive one for Christians, Hell is mankinds common grave??

How is it offensive, please explain further - so that I might clarify what you mean. I personally think that any concept of Hell where people are burning eternally is offensive. It isn't congruous with the love that God showed by sending his son Christ to die for us.

 

Does anyone know the background behind all of this? Or any information that can provie reasonable argument to support such starkly sour or bitter statements?

 

Did you read the scriptures associated with that belief? If not, perhaps doing so would help you. If you did, clarify and I will see if I can help to clear up this matter.