Woman Dies After Sect’ Family Refused her Accepting Blood Transfusion (Page 4)

bro tell him

Posted: at 9-01-2013 07:23 AM (11 years ago) | Newbie

The Doctor should be held responsible also the government. In civilized culture the individual is subject to accept medical treatment that is prescribed by the Doctor and legally enforceable if the patient or some body else chooses otherwise, I think the number of women that are dying every year based on the non blood or carelessness of the Doctors are really alarming in the Nigeria healthcare system.

Posted: at 9-01-2013 07:43 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming

How many were virgins before they got married!  The same Bible forbids fornication, adultery, stealing ,gossiping and the countless every day bad bad . Ignorance is eating so deep even at this age. The government and the medical association must come up with standard practice to protect vulnerable people. In standard environment no other person get closed to the Doctor to tell the them what to do. But in Nigeria they will  like everyone to enter the surgery room so that they can negotiate more money as bills and side payments.Medical procedure are supposed to be guided by confidentiality ,why should it become a family or extended family decision!  In abroad,no one sleep with a family member in the hospital  instead you stay in a near by hotel or bread and breakfast , and give a call ,and visit, not going there to decide medicine or preach what you know so little about.

Posted: at 9-01-2013 08:02 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming

 

Posted: at 9-01-2013 08:33 AM (11 years ago) | Gistmaniac

Another one if those religion with their archaic doctrines that does not apply to our generation. Govt needs to revisit these so called religious doctrines and scrap of some portions that endanger or brainwash people. 

---

Posted: at 9-01-2013 10:23 AM (11 years ago) | Gistmaniac

ok, saVE  a soul

Posted: at 9-01-2013 11:12 AM (11 years ago) | Hero

Bro tell them.

Posted: at 9-01-2013 11:49 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming

What interpretation did you give the words 'abstain' and 'eat' you moron?

---

Posted: at 9-01-2013 12:32 PM (11 years ago) | Hero

 

Posted: at 9-01-2013 01:10 PM (11 years ago) | Upcoming

It’s sad that she died - I think what the family needs consoling words and encouragements. Not argument and comments that will make them feel worse than they are already.

But for those who have personal issues against her beliefs, it’s good I mention this. She did not die because of refused to accept blood - which is against her belief. She died because the doctor did not know how to treat her without the unrealistic and traditional blood infusion. A patient has a right covered by the law to decide which treatment to accept or reject, and a doctor is bound by such laws to administer alternatives to meet the patient’s needs and right.

How many patience have survived severe complications with blood, - record still shows the dead statistics are higher.
For one thing, the decision to refuse blood is her personal decision - stem from her understanding of the scriptures and a desire to please her Heavenly father Jehovah.

Now the main issue about blood transfusion - which some says its a upside - down application of the bible, - that is a wrong personal sentiments against Witnesses.

Someone (@Flozywhite) even mention that just because the bible says we should not eat blood (a fact am glad he admits) does not mean you should not use it when your life is in danger. That is a very bad way of obeying God's command. Let me explain: Did they apostles refuse to preach about Jesus when the Pharisees warned them to stop? Did they stop even after several dead threat, arrest and beatings? The answer is No. Another one. The bible says we should avoid fornication because God hates it. Now as human, do you feel justified when you still go ahead and have sex with someone who is not your wife just because you think you can not control your segxwal urges, that? That would be absurd. Now you can see its clear – we must obey God’s command, irrespective of the circumstances, we should not think we want to save our life if we reject some of God’s direct command just because we don’t feel good about obeying them.

Is the stand of Witnesses on the issue of blood a misguided view? Absolutely NO.

Consider this
---------------------------------
Before the Flood, humans ate only fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you.” However, God set this restriction: “Only flesh with its soul [or, life]—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature.

We show respect for blood by not eating it. In the Law that Jehovah gave the Israelites, he commanded: “As for any man . . . who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. . . . I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh.’” (Leviticus 17:13, 14) God’s command not to eat animal blood, first given to Noah some 800 years earlier, was still in force. Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.

A similar command rests upon Christians. The apostles and other men taking the lead among Jesus’ followers in the first century met together to decide what commands had to be obeyed by all in the Christian congregation. They came to this conclusion: “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 [leaving the blood in the meat] and from fornication.” (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25) So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and segxwal immorality.

Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.

Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.

Today, faithful servants of God firmly resolve to follow his direction regarding blood. They will not eat it in any form. Nor will they accept blood for medical reasons.* They are sure that the Creator of blood knows what is best for them. Do you believe that he does?

Such information brings conscience to the fore. Why? Christians agree on the need to follow God’s guidance, yet in some areas personal judgments must be made, and conscience comes into play. Conscience is the inherent ability to weigh and decide matters, often moral issues. (Romans 2:14, 15) You know, however, that consciences differ.* The Bible mentions that some have ‘consciences that are weak,’ implying that others’ consciences are strong. (1 Corinthians 8:12) Christians differ in the extent to which they have made progress in learning what God says, in being sensitive to his thinking, and in applying such to their decisions. We can illustrate this with the Jews and the eating of meat.

The Bible is clear that a person obedient to God would not eat unbled meat. That was so important that even in an emergency when Israelite soldiers ate unbled meat, they were guilty of a grave wrong, or sin. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16; 1 Samuel 14:31-35) Still, questions might have arisen. When an Israelite killed a sheep, how quickly did he have to drain its blood? Did he have to slit the animal’s throat for drainage? Was it necessary to hang the sheep by its hind legs? For how long? What would he do with a large cow? Even after drainage, some blood might remain in the meat. Could he eat such meat? Who would decide?

Imagine a zealous Jew facing such issues. He might have thought it safest to avoid meat sold in a meat market, much as another would shun meat if there was a chance that it was once offered to an idol. Other Jews might have eaten meat only after following rituals to extract the blood.* (Matthew 23:23, 24) What do you think about such varied reactions? Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of rabbis to get a ruling on each one? Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshipers to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood, but he did not go beyond that.—John 8:32.

As noted in paragraphs 11 and 12, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components—plasma, red cells, white cells, and platelets. What about small fractions extracted from a primary component, such as serums containing antibodies to fight a disease or to counteract snake venom? (See page 30, paragraph 4.) Some have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command ‘to abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:29; 21:25; page 31, paragraph 1) That is their responsibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood (animal or human), even a tiny fraction of just one primary component.* Still others may accept injections of a plasma protein to fight disease or to counteract snake venom, yet they may reject other small fractions. Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable.

What the Bible says about conscience is helpful when we make such decisions. The first step is to learn what God’s Word says and to strive to mold your conscience by it. That will equip you to decide in line with God’s guidance rather than ask someone else to make a ruling for you. (Psalm 25:4, 5) As to taking in blood fractions, some have thought, ‘This is a matter of conscience, so it doesn’t make any difference.’ That is faulty reasoning. The fact that something is a matter of conscience does not mean that it is inconsequential. It can be very serious. One reason is that it can affect individuals whose conscience differs from ours. We see that from Paul’s advice about meat that might have been presented to an idol and was later sold in a market. A Christian ought to be concerned about not ‘wounding consciences that are weak.’ If he stumbles others, he could ‘ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died’ and be sinning against Christ. Hence, while issues about tiny blood fractions are for personal decision, those decisions should be taken very seriously.—1 Corinthians 8:8, 11-13; 10:25-31.

A related aspect underscores the seriousness of decisions concerning blood. This is the effect such decisions may have on you. If your taking a small blood fraction would trouble your Bible-trained conscience, you should not ignore it. Nor should you suppress your conscientious leaning just because someone tells you, “It’s all right to take this; many have.” Remember, millions of people today ignore their conscience, and that becomes deadened, allowing them to lie or do other wrong things with no remorse. Christians definitely want to avoid such a course.—2 Samuel 24:10; 1 Timothy 4:1, 2.

Near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 says: “Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential? No. It is serious.” It is particularly so because your relationship with “the living God” is involved. That relationship is the only one that can lead to everlasting life, based on the saving power of Jesus’ shed blood. Cultivate a profound regard for blood because of what God is doing by means of it—saving lives. Paul aptly wrote: “You had no hope and were without God in the world. But now in union with Christ Jesus you who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ.”—Ephesians 2:12, 13

Read More......http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005143?q=blood+transfusions&p=par

You can read more information about other Bible topics and Jehovah Witnesses beliefs on  http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/

Posted: at 9-01-2013 01:46 PM (11 years ago) | Newbie