I read an article in this week's issue of Macleans about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing life saving blood transfusions because they believed it was against what the Bible said. They once published an article in their magazine Awake! citing 24 cases wherein children had died as a result of refusing blood transfusions. The catch is that they labelled them as martyrs. This to me seems problematic and is one of the main reasons institutionalised religions have such a bad rap. The fundamentals aren't so bad; it's the human interpretations and dogmas that lead to child "martyrs." Anyways, here's a found poem from the certificate they sign refusing transfusions:
Found Poem: No Blood Transfusions
“No Blood Transfusion!
As a God-fearing Christian and a believer of Jehovah’s
word, the Bible, I hereby demand that blood, in any
way, shape or form, is NOT to be fed into my body;
however, blood substitutes may be used in case of
extreme loss of blood.
‘YOU MUST NOT EAT THE BLOOD OF ANY SORT OF FLESH’”
Supposing one signed this and promptly died
could we consider that suicide? Paraphrasing,
I hereby wilfully submit my life by refusing treatment.
How does one see hope in this religion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is a good example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read. Jehovah's Witnesses do abstain from accepting blood, which the Bible regards as sacred, representing the life or soul of the creature. (Acts 15:19,20; Genesis 9:4-6) But there is no Awake! citing children who have died as "martyrs". Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to accept all available treatments and medical procedures to help them recover, as long as they don't conflict with their Bible-trained consciences.
There are many safe alternatives to blood transfusion that are becoming more and more popular in the medical field. This video excerpt gives some examples of these. Many doctors consider these bloodless alternatives to be much safer and healthier than blood transfusions. Dr. Michael Rose, medical director and anesthesiologist, recently said, "Any patient who receives bloodless medicine is, in essence, the recipient of the highest quality surgery that is possible."
And no, there is no poem such as the one quoted above that we sign. What we do sign is a legal document expressing the type of treatment we have chosen to receive, which is our right as patients. Jehovah's Witnesses by no means ignorantly and stubbornly refuse life-saving treatment, which is how you seem to view the situation. Rather, we routinely study the issue, both in light of the Bible's view on blood and along with new developments in treatments from the medical field, and we prepare ahead of time, making decisions on which treatments we'll accept and which ones we won't, based on our conscience. In addition to this, we have Hospital Liaison Committees, made up of mature Christian men, who will go to the hospital to work with doctors, providing them with helpful material and references to aid them with our particular situation. Even more could be said, but this should suffice to show that we take this issue very seriously, doing all we can to receive the highest quality of care possible that respects God's decree on blood.
TJ
Because this argument is analogous to trying to explain the concept of quantum mechanics to a third grader, I am not going to waste my time and only offer one counter argument: follow your own advice. To quote directly from your post, "This is a good example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read." What reason, aside from having been brought up to, do you have for believing what the Bible says? Practice a little bit of healthy skepticism. Or if you are going to follow the Bible, please put things into context.
Oh, and "found poetry" does not necessarily mean that what is posted, published, etc. was originally a poem. It usually refers to a block of text an artist stumbles upon and decides to use for artistic purposes ie. to prove a point.
Wow Mark, you are the one who posts all kinds of factually incorrect information about Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are telling me to practice "healthy skepticism"? Interesting reply.
TJ
Please, show me the error of my ways. Point out my factual blunders.
Oh, check out
this website:
That is the magazine I was referring to. And pardon me for flexing some interpretive muscles, but these kids seem quite like martyrs to me.
Mark, you said, "They once published an article in their magazine Awake! citing 24 cases wherein children had died as a result of refusing blood transfusions. The catch is that they labelled them as martyrs."
I have access to all of these Awake! magazines, and I challenged your claim above when I said, "there is no Awake! citing children who have died as 'martyrs'." Please cite this Awake! that says that 24 children died because they lacked a blood transfusion to prove your statement.
You also said, "here's a found poem from the certificate they sign refusing transfusions." As I said before, the words you quote are not found in any certificate that we sign. The document that we do sign that states our specific requests on how our medical care should be handled is a legal document with strictly legal language. There is no statement of faith to be found anywhere on it.
This is the factually incorrect information that I brought to your attention in my last post.
TJ
Good words.
Post a Comment